Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #36333 > unrolled thread

The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-06 09:51 -0800
    Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-06 11:10 -0800
    Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-07 00:01 -0500
    Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-08 17:43 -0800
      Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-09 07:48 -0800
        Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-09 08:21 -0800
          Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-09 20:07 +0000
            Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-09 22:01 -0500
            Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-10 00:48 -0500
        Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-09 22:39 -0800
          Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-10 08:27 -0800
            Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-10 23:30 -0800
              Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-11 01:04 -0800
                Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-13 22:27 -0800
                  Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-14 12:58 -0500
                    Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-14 21:02 -0800
                  Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-14 22:12 -0800
                    Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-15 16:12 -0800
                      Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-15 19:26 -0800
                        Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-16 17:46 -0800
                        Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-17 19:17 -0800
                          Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Tessa Bonting <tessa.bonting@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 07:00 -0800
                            Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 11:42 -0500
                              Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 19:27 +0200
                            Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-18 17:54 -0800
                              Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-18 18:32 -0800
                                Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-18 18:58 -0800
                                  Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-18 20:10 -0800
                                  Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2015-02-19 11:18 +0000
                              Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-19 05:29 -0500
                                Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Tessa Bonting <tessa.bonting@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 06:24 -0800
                                  Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-19 19:40 -0500
                                    Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Tessa Bonting <tessa.bonting@gmail.com> - 2015-02-20 03:42 -0800
                                      Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-20 20:45 +0100
                                      Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-20 13:45 -0800
                                        Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-20 14:02 -0800
                                          Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-20 20:12 -0500
                                            Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-20 18:28 -0800
                                              Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-20 17:49 -1000
                                                Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-21 08:09 -0800
                                                  Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-21 09:12 -1000
                                                    Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-21 14:33 -0800
                                                      Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-21 21:39 -1000
                                                        Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-02-22 09:13 +0000
                                              Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-21 12:07 -0500
                                            Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-20 19:18 -0800
                                            Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-02-21 14:22 +0100
                                              Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-02-21 14:24 +0100
                                                Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-02-21 14:25 +0100
                                                Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-21 07:42 -0800
                                              Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-21 12:55 -0500
                                                Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-23 20:45 -0800
                                                  Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-24 03:00 -0500
                                                Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-02-24 06:42 +0100
                                                  Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-24 03:01 -0500
                                            Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-23 16:59 -0800
                                              Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-24 03:00 -0500
                                        Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-20 14:06 -0800
                                        Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-20 20:13 -0500
                                Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-19 12:06 -1000
                                  Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-19 19:38 -0500
                                    Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-19 16:47 -1000
                                      Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-20 00:54 -0500
                                        Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-19 22:29 -0800
                                          Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-20 04:21 -0500
                                            Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-20 01:27 -0800
                                              Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-20 01:39 -0800
                              Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-19 10:43 +0000
                          Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 11:39 -0500
                    Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-16 01:24 -0800
                      Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-16 19:17 -0800
                        Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-17 01:14 -0800
                          Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-18 17:36 -0800
                            Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-02-19 11:47 +0000
                      Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 11:47 -0500
                        Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-18 20:29 -0500
                        Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 00:55 -0800
              Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-12 20:03 -0500

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#36704

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:06:00 -0500, Elizabeth D. Rather  
<erather@forth.com> wrote:
> On 2/19/15 12:29 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:

>> Yes, I'm aware I don't always put comma's and question
>> marks inside quotes, as it's common for many programmers
>> to NOT do so, including most people here.
>
> Thanks, Rod, I agree with most of your observations. But I have a couple  
> of picky issues with the paragraph above:
>
> First, we don't use apostrophes to make plurals, so the issue is about  
> commas and question marks inside quotes.
>
> Second, IMO the placement of commas, periods, and question marks with  
> respect to quotes depends on whether the quoted word or words is part of  
> the sentence:
>
> He said, "This is easy!"   (quotes contain a sentence)
> The correct spelling is "commas".  (quotes contain just a special term)

Personally, I'm fine with that, although I'm unsure as to it's correctness.
It's usually easy to stuff an extra word at the end of a sentence so that
the quote isn't near punctuation.  Although, I would ask if you're missing
a colon in the latter sentence.  It would seem so to me, due to the spoken
pause, but sources on correct use of colons are conflicting.

Congratulations!  I don't see any spelling errors in your reply, as
has been normal for you recently ...  Did you turn on the spell check?
I generally don't use one, unless it's for something important.

And, I was somewhat surprised to learn that "thanks" is actually
a word.  At least, it's a word according to online version of
Merriam Webster.  I was always taught that it wasn't and that
one should use "thank you."  So, I guess I need to watch on my
apostrophes.  It seems I'm now inserting them where I know
they don't go.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36706

On 2/19/15 2:38 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:06:00 -0500, Elizabeth D. Rather
> <erather@forth.com> wrote:
>> On 2/19/15 12:29 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I'm aware I don't always put comma's and question
>>> marks inside quotes, as it's common for many programmers
>>> to NOT do so, including most people here.
>>
>> Thanks, Rod, I agree with most of your observations. But I have a
>> couple of picky issues with the paragraph above:
>>
>> First, we don't use apostrophes to make plurals, so the issue is about
>> commas and question marks inside quotes.
>>
>> Second, IMO the placement of commas, periods, and question marks with
>> respect to quotes depends on whether the quoted word or words is part
>> of the sentence:
>>
>> He said, "This is easy!"   (quotes contain a sentence)
>> The correct spelling is "commas".  (quotes contain just a special term)
>
> Personally, I'm fine with that, although I'm unsure as to it's correctness.
> It's usually easy to stuff an extra word at the end of a sentence so that
> the quote isn't near punctuation.  Although, I would ask if you're missing
> a colon in the latter sentence.  It would seem so to me, due to the spoken
> pause, but sources on correct use of colons are conflicting.
>
> Congratulations!  I don't see any spelling errors in your reply, as
> has been normal for you recently ...  Did you turn on the spell check?
> I generally don't use one, unless it's for something important.
>
> And, I was somewhat surprised to learn that "thanks" is actually
> a word.  At least, it's a word according to online version of
> Merriam Webster.  I was always taught that it wasn't and that
> one should use "thank you."  So, I guess I need to watch on my
> apostrophes.  It seems I'm now inserting them where I know
> they don't go.

Well, the practice with regard to punctuation & quotes is what I was 
taught in school.

Regarding apostrophes, the most common misuse is in "it's" as a 
possessive pronoun, as in your paragraph above. There are no apostrophes 
in any possessive pronouns:

	mine yours his hers theirs ours its

"It's" is correct only as a contraction for "it is".


Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36709

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 21:47:19 -0500, Elizabeth D. Rather  
<erather@forth.com> wrote:

> Regarding apostrophes, the most common misuse is in "it's" as a  
> possessive pronoun, as in your paragraph above.

I know why that one was wrong: editing.  I can't explain "comma's".

;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36710

On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 9:53:59 PM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 21:47:19 -0500, Elizabeth D. Rather  

> 
> > Regarding apostrophes, the most common misuse is in "it's" as a  
> > possessive pronoun, as in your paragraph above.
> 
> I know why that one was wrong: editing.  I can't explain "comma's".
> 
> ;-)

I have been told that my punctuation, spelling and grammar are pretty
 good.  My problems usually involve the over-use of commas and ellipses
 ... and the use of sentence fragments and "ghetto-jargon" in casual
 conversation.

The most common uses of "'s" are to indicate contraction (he is == he's)
 and possession (Fred's truck).  Elizabeth is correct ... "'s" doesn't
 belong in a plural noun or a possessive pronoun.

Answering an earlier post ... the plural of "this" is "these", and the
 plural of "that" is "those".  They can all be used as adjectives or
 nouns, and simply indicate the proximity of the object in relation
 to the person referring to it.

Mike

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36711

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 01:29:14 -0500, Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com>  
wrote:
> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 9:53:59 PM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 21:47:19 -0500, Elizabeth D. Rather

>> > Regarding apostrophes, the most common misuse is in "it's" as a
>> > possessive pronoun, as in your paragraph above.
>>
>> I know why that one was wrong: editing.  I can't explain "comma's".
>>
>> ;-)
>
> I have been told that my punctuation, spelling and grammar are pretty
>  good.  My problems usually involve the over-use of commas and ellipses
>  ... and the use of sentence fragments and "ghetto-jargon" in casual
>  conversation.
>
> The most common uses of "'s" are to indicate contraction (he is == he's)
>  and possession (Fred's truck).  Elizabeth is correct ... "'s" doesn't
>  belong in a plural noun or a possessive pronoun.
>
> Answering an earlier post ... the plural of "this" is "these", and the
>  plural of "that" is "those".  They can all be used as adjectives or
>  nouns, and simply indicate the proximity of the object in relation
>  to the person referring to it.

Hey, I'm curious about something.  How does a guy who said he has
"worked in small automotive shops for the last 30 years" end up on
Usenet of all places?  Not only are you on Usenet but you're in
comp.lang.forth.  I've known a few cars guys in my life and I
seriously doubt that any of them would ever be found in a computer
or programming group.  AIR, they shunned computers, IRL.  Of course,
cars today are computer controlled.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36712

On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 1:21:22 AM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> 
> Hey, I'm curious about something.  How does a guy who said he has
> "worked in small automotive shops for the last 30 years" end up on
> Usenet of all places?  Not only are you on Usenet but you're in
> comp.lang.forth.  I've known a few cars guys in my life and I
> seriously doubt that any of them would ever be found in a computer
> or programming group.  AIR, they shunned computers, IRL.  Of course,
> cars today are computer controlled.
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton

I have an eccentric love of cars, computers, and underachievement.
 Plug "barrym95838" into your favorite search engine and be prepared
 to be puzzled ... I know I am ... ;-)

Mike

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36713

On Friday, 20 February 2015 09:27:45 UTC, Michael Barry  wrote:
> 
> I have an eccentric love of cars, computers, and underachievement.
>  Plug "barrym95838" into your favorite search engine and be prepared
>  to be puzzled ... I know I am ... ;-)
> 
> Mike

Hey! Another Atariage patron :-) Search for Willsy in the Forums.
I hang out in the TI-99/4A forums on Atariage. It keeps away from
beer and women. I wrote Turboforth for the TI-99/4A:

http://turboforth.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36683

on 19/02/2015 01:54:46,  wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 8:00:55 AM UTC-7, Tessa Bonting
> > wrote:
>> Op woensdag 18 februari 2015 04:17:36 UTC+1 schreef hughag...@gmail.com:
> > wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 8:26:28 PM UTC-7, Michael Barry wrote:
> > wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 4:12:14 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com
> wrote: wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > ... The guy at the auto-parts store recommended to me that I use le
> ss
>> > > > than 1/2 anti-freeze. He does drag-racing, and doesn't use any anti
> -
>> > > > freeze, but for street use some anti-freeze is necessary to prevent
>> > > > boiling over --- but he thought that 1/2 was too high and I should
>> > > > go with less --- the 1/2 figure is primarily to prevent freezing in
>> > > > cold climates, but shouldn't be necessary in Phoenix where our
>> > > > problem is over-heating.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I would almost always question the validity of any advice from an aut
> o-
>> > >  parts store employee, especially if it went against manufacturer
>> > >  recommendations or product instructions, as is the case here.
>> >
>> > Here is an article on the subject:
>> > http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ethylene-glycol-d_146.html> >
>> > According to this, a 1/5 mixture has a boiling point of 216F and a 1/2
> mixture is 225F (at sea-level atmospheric pressure) --- not a big
> differenc e --- the use of lubricant reduces the surface tension of
> the coolant, and works better the less anti-freeze is in the mixture,
> so this may more than make up for the 9 degree difference in
> > boiling-point.
>> >
> > boiling-point.
>> > I don't think I'm totally wrong, but I don't know enough about chemistr
> boiling-point. y to argue the point --- just following the 1/2
> recommendation on the bottl e, as you suggest, is a reasonable way to
> > go.
>> >
> > go.
>> > I don't really understand why a car boils over anyway. Water in liquid
> go. form will neither compress nor expand (afaik, the same is true
> when ethylen e glycol is mixed in). So, what causes the expansion of
> the coolant that bl ows out the valve on the radiator cap? If the
> water turned into steam, then that would certainly expand and blow the
> radiator cap, but how does the co olant expand before the radiator cap
> blows when the coolant is still liquid ? As I said, the coolant
> shouldn't expand at all when it is still in liquid form and is in a
> closed system (the system is closed prior to the radiator cap blowing)
> --- so where does the expansion come from that blows the radi ator
> > cap?
>> >
> > cap?
>> > It seems like I have just proven that a car can't boil over no matter h
> cap? ow hot it gets and no matter how much ethylene glycol is mixed in
> (includin g 0%) --- grim experience indicates otherwise, however.
> 
>> Water expands above 4 celsius and below the same temperatur.
>> If you compresse it it will stop in liquid form at 4 degrees celcius.
> 
> I said: "Water in liquid form will neither compress nor expand (afaik,
> the same is true when ethylene glycol is mixed in)." If there is
> air-space, the n it is possible for the coolant to boil into that
> air-space (air and steam are both compressible) and the steam to build
> up pressure in that air-spac e, which will eventually blow the
> radiator cap --- but there is no air-spac e because I filled the
> radiator up to the brim --- so I still don't underst and how the
> coolant can boil BEFORE the radiator cap has blown.

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

> 
>> That is what you learn at primary school!!
> 
> One of the things that they teach in primary school is grammar. Your
> senten ce should use "this" rather than "that" because you are only
> referencing on e thing (you can't have a "that" without a distinct
> "this," implying refere nces to at least two things). Also, the
> preposition should be "in" rather t han "at."

Your grammar perhaps. It's fine.

> 
> Getting back to the subject of boiling water; I don't understand why
> Earth has water vapor in the atmosphere. At sea-level, the boiling
> temperature of water is 212F --- but the temperature, even on the
> equator, never gets abo ve 120F. It seems as if all the water on the
> planet would drain into the oc eans, and then it would just stay there
> forever because the temperature on the surface of the ocean is almost
> 100F too cool for it to boil --- it seem s like the atmosphere and all
> of the land should be totally dry and barren --- why do we have clouds
> and precipitation at all?
> 

Vapor pressure again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_pressure

You might have been taught that at school.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36656

On 2/17/2015 10:17 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 8:26:28 PM UTC-7, Michael Barry wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 4:12:14 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> ... The guy at the auto-parts store recommended to me that I use less
>>> than 1/2 anti-freeze. He does drag-racing, and doesn't use any anti-
>>> freeze, but for street use some anti-freeze is necessary to prevent
>>> boiling over --- but he thought that 1/2 was too high and I should
>>> go with less --- the 1/2 figure is primarily to prevent freezing in
>>> cold climates, but shouldn't be necessary in Phoenix where our
>>> problem is over-heating.
>>>
>>
>> I would almost always question the validity of any advice from an auto-
>>   parts store employee, especially if it went against manufacturer
>>   recommendations or product instructions, as is the case here.
>
> Here is an article on the subject:
> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ethylene-glycol-d_146.html
>
> According to this, a 1/5 mixture has a boiling point of 216F and a 1/2 mixture is 225F (at sea-level atmospheric pressure) --- not a big difference --- the use of lubricant reduces the surface tension of the coolant, and works better the less anti-freeze is in the mixture, so this may more than make up for the 9 degree difference in boiling-point.
>
> I don't think I'm totally wrong, but I don't know enough about chemistry to argue the point --- just following the 1/2 recommendation on the bottle, as you suggest, is a reasonable way to go.
>
> I don't really understand why a car boils over anyway. Water in liquid form will neither compress nor expand (afaik, the same is true when ethylene glycol is mixed in). So, what causes the expansion of the coolant that blows out the valve on the radiator cap? If the water turned into steam, then that would certainly expand and blow the radiator cap, but how does the coolant expand before the radiator cap blows when the coolant is still liquid? As I said, the coolant shouldn't expand at all when it is still in liquid form and is in a closed system (the system is closed prior to the radiator cap blowing) --- so where does the expansion come from that blows the radiator cap?

Your understanding of physics is not so good.  Liquid water *does* 
expand and contract with temperature, but that doesn't cause boiling 
over.  An engine boils over when the fluid gets hot enough to boil, 
hence the term.  I don't know why you think the water can't turn into 
steam.  There is always an "air" space in a cooling system and the steam 
in that space can be compressed which is what creates the pressure which 
in turn raises the boiling point of the fluid (the reason for 
pressurizing the system in the first place).  The more fluid that turns 
to steam the higher the pressure until the cap rating is exceeded and 
the pressure pushes out of the system.  Once the pressure lowers, the 
remaining fluid is at a temperature higher than the boiling point and it 
starts to literally boil out the pressure relief valve in the cap... the 
engine boils over.


> It seems like I have just proven that a car can't boil over no matter how hot it gets and no matter how much ethylene glycol is mixed in (including 0%) --- grim experience indicates otherwise, however.

I guess you proved something.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36597

On Sunday, 15 February 2015 06:12:45 UTC, Michael Barry  wrote:
> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 10:27:48 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > Well, today I went to a radiator shop because my radiator was clogged up
> > and my vehicle was overheating. The last time I did this was 18 months
> > ago. At that time, the shop gave the radiator an acid bath to remove all
> > the gunk from inside and the paint from outside, then they soldered any
> > cracks that were leaking, then they painted it, and then they were done
> > (I removed the radiator and reinstalled it myself to save money). This
> > scenario is no longer legal.
> > 
> 
> 18 months between a major service like that is highly unusual.  My '98
>  Kia Sephia is over 16 years old and has 120,000 miles on the odometer,
>  and its aluminum and plastic radiator still works fine in 100° plus
>  Summers here.  I have never removed it or flushed it, and I have only
>  drained and refilled it once, about 30,000 miles ago when I changed
>  the timing belt and water pump.  I would suspect that you have an
>  internal engine problem or are using a sub-standard anti-freeze and/or
>  water base.  For most non-exotic vehicles built in the last century,
>  you should always run a 50/50 mix of a quality anti-freeze and
>  distilled water.  It doesn't just protect against freezing, but has
>  additive packages that are critical in the prevention of corrosion,
>  cavitation and clogging.
> 
> Mike

Hugh probably has a "blowing" head gasket (it's letting oil into the
cooling system). You know if happens because you get a white creamy
junk in the radiator. The gunked up radiator is probably the cheapest
part of the solution ;-)

The head will have to come off, possibly skim the head and re-fit.

Glad those days are behind me :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36627

On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 2:24:42 AM UTC-7, Mark Wills wrote:
> Glad those days are behind me :-)

The days of driving cars are behind you? Did you learn how to fly like Superman?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36630

On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 03:17:52 UTC, hughag...@gmail.com  wrote:
> On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 2:24:42 AM UTC-7, Mark Wills wrote:
> > Glad those days are behind me :-)
> 
> The days of driving cars are behind you? Did you learn how to fly like Superman?

No, I mean the days of driving old bangers is behind me! Though I should really
get rid of my twenty year old Isuzu Trooper. But, it still works and has never
actually broken down (just wear and tear stuff). Still on its original alternator,
radiator, and turbo. Never had the head off etc. Just keeps on going.

The Japanese know how to build 'em to last.

http://www.itocuk.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23626&sid=49509384446d1f7a7524f9c236325c76

Scroll down about half way. There's a picture of a green trooper. 
Mine is exactly the same, only he has smarter wheels on his.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36672

On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 2:14:27 AM UTC-7, Mark Wills wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 03:17:52 UTC, hughag...@gmail.com  wrote:
> > On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 2:24:42 AM UTC-7, Mark Wills wrote:
> > > Glad those days are behind me :-)
> > 
> > The days of driving cars are behind you? Did you learn how to fly like Superman?
> 
> No, I mean the days of driving old bangers is behind me! Though I should really
> get rid of my twenty year old Isuzu Trooper. But, it still works and has never
> actually broken down (just wear and tear stuff). Still on its original alternator,
> radiator, and turbo. Never had the head off etc. Just keeps on going.

I've heard other people tell of Isuzu Troopers that have lasted for decades like yours --- it is a "trooper" in the sense that it keeps going and doesn't give up.

Too bad you don't live in America, or I'd buy your 20-year-old Trooper.

> The Japanese know how to build 'em to last.

The whole concept of "American made" is meaningless nowadays, because most of the parts come from Japan for American-made vehicles. Consider the Isuzu NPR trucks that are built in Mexico and sold in America --- also, notice that Chevrolet/GMC has a truck that looks suspiciously similar to the NPR (it is actually an NPR, including the entire engine, but it gets assembled in America so it is "American made"). I think that it is less expensive for Japan to ship car parts rather than whole cars, because the boxes pack together with less air-space in the cargo ship's hold --- also, there are a lot of self-proclaimed patriots in America who only buy American-made products, so the vehicle has to be at least assembled in America for them to be happy (they'll buy the GMC truck but not the Isuzu truck, although they are actually the same truck).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36685

In article <8f6c0b0d-6d00-4829-a35e-ed5eb7db6fb1@googlegroups.com>,
 <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 2:14:27 AM UTC-7, Mark
>Wills wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 17 February 2015 03:17:52 UTC,
>hughag...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> > On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 2:24:42 AM UTC-7,
>Mark Wills wrote:
>> > > Glad those days are behind me :-)
>> >
>> > The days of driving cars are behind you? Did you
>learn how to fly like Superman?
>>
>> No, I mean the days of driving old bangers is behind
>me! Though I should really
>> get rid of my twenty year old Isuzu Trooper. But, it
>still works and has never
>> actually broken down (just wear and tear stuff). Still
>on its original alternator,
>> radiator, and turbo. Never had the head off etc. Just
>keeps on going.
>
>I've heard other people tell of Isuzu Troopers that have
>lasted for decades like yours --- it is a "trooper" in
>the sense that it keeps going and doesn't give up.
>
>Too bad you don't live in America, or I'd buy your
>20-year-old Trooper.
>
>> The Japanese know how to build 'em to last.
>
>The whole concept of "American made" is meaningless
>nowadays, because most of the parts come from Japan for
>American-made vehicles. Consider the Isuzu NPR trucks

If you would list the countries that have not contributed to
parts in your car, it would be very short, e.g.
Yemen
Monaco
the Cayman islands.
Iran
another few.
If you include indirect, and base materials it would be extremely short
like
    Monaco
    the Cayman islands.

If you include financial involvement nothing would be left.

That is the globalisation of the economy predicted by Marx.

As an exercise collect the names of all countries that
are printed on parts of your computer.

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36659

On 2/16/2015 4:24 AM, Mark Wills wrote:
>
> Hugh probably has a "blowing" head gasket (it's letting oil into the
> cooling system). You know if happens because you get a white creamy
> junk in the radiator. The gunked up radiator is probably the cheapest
> part of the solution ;-)
>
> The head will have to come off, possibly skim the head and re-fit.
>
> Glad those days are behind me :-)

I'm curious where you are from.  I am in the eastern coastal US and I've 
never heard anyone around here use the term "skim the head", we call it 
"milling".  Also, "re-fit" sounds very British, we would just say 
replace.  Am I right or are you US?

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36671

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:47:21 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/16/2015 4:24 AM, Mark Wills wrote:

>> Hugh probably has a "blowing" head gasket (it's letting oil into the
>> cooling system). You know if happens because you get a white creamy
>> junk in the radiator. The gunked up radiator is probably the cheapest
>> part of the solution ;-)
>>
>> The head will have to come off, possibly skim the head and re-fit.
>>
>> Glad those days are behind me :-)
>
> I'm curious where you are from.  I am in the eastern coastal US
> and I've never heard anyone around here use the term "skim the head",
> we call it "milling".  Also, "re-fit" sounds very British, we would
> just say replace.  Am I right or are you US?
>

Yes, from the GPS coordinates for the registered location of his IP sent
on his last post, he's probably in the U.K.  Why does that shock you?
I meant him being in the U.K., not that all IPs have GPS coordinates ...
Remember, this is a  Usenet group which is propagated worldwide.  It's
   *NOT*  Google Groups.  E.g., I'm in the U.S. and connect my Usenet
reader to servers in the E.U. to read and post to c.l.f.


Rod Pemberton
--
"A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a
police state, the right of the government to register and ban arms
shall not be infringed." - The Socialist's Second Amendment ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36681

On Wednesday, 18 February 2015 16:47:27 UTC, rickman  wrote:
> On 2/16/2015 4:24 AM, Mark Wills wrote:
> >
> > Hugh probably has a "blowing" head gasket (it's letting oil into the
> > cooling system). You know if happens because you get a white creamy
> > junk in the radiator. The gunked up radiator is probably the cheapest
> > part of the solution ;-)
> >
> > The head will have to come off, possibly skim the head and re-fit.
> >
> > Glad those days are behind me :-)
> 
> I'm curious where you are from.  I am in the eastern coastal US and I've 
> never heard anyone around here use the term "skim the head", we call it 
> "milling".  Also, "re-fit" sounds very British, we would just say 
> replace.  Am I right or are you US?
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick

I'm from England. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36525

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:30:04 -0500, <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote:

> P.S. Next time you go to a fast-food restaurant, be aware that your
> hamburger patty contains beef from upwards of 1000 different cows mixed
> together, and the chance of there being feces in your burger is pretty
> close to 100% --- just something to think about!

There are trace amounts of all sorts of things in food
 from harvesting, e.g., bits of mice, birds, frogs, snakes,
lizards, insects, rodent and bird droppings, etc.

Cooking kills E. Coli.  If outbreaks continue, it's just
a matter of congress or the FDA or USDA or some other
imposing government agency requiring irradiation of beef.

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

A large percentage of foods contain naturally occurring
chemicals which are poisonous, hallucinogen, carcinogenic,
contain cyanide or chemicals which decompose into cyanide,
etc, e.g., raw tree nuts (almonds, cashews), fruit seeds/pits,
nutmeg, lima beans, kidney beans, or a variety of bacteria such
as salmonella, listeria, e.g., cheese, berries, peppers, milk,
peanut butter or parasites and bacteria, e.g., seafood, or
worms and bacteria e.g., pork, beef, turkey, or naturally
occurring heavy metals like as arsenic and lead, e.g.,
chocolates, apple juice, rice, or heavy metals contamination
due to humanity like mercury, e.g., most fish and other seafoods.

That doesn't even get into food additives or pesticides which
all the "greens" and "eco-terrorists" are concerned with ...
They don't even bother to complain about the unpasteurized milk
or raw cheeses in the E.U.  I.e., you can't eat much of anything
without taking a risk.  How much risk do you want with that?

Do you think it's ironic that "millenials" hate McDonald's,
preferring, supposedly healthier places like Chipotle, when
they have no problem wolfing down a carcinogen laced,
charbroiled burger from Burger King?  Same thing, but worse.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web