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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#36644

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?

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.

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

#36655

Op woensdag 18 februari 2015 04:17:36 UTC+1 schreef hughag...@gmail.com:
> 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?
> 
> 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.

Water expands above 4 celsius and below the same temperatur.
If you compresse it it will stop in liquid form at 4 degrees celcius.

That is what you learn at primary school!!

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

#36657

On 2/18/2015 10:00 AM, Tessa Bonting wrote:
> Op woensdag 18 februari 2015 04:17:36 UTC+1 schreef hughag...@gmail.com:
>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>
> Water expands above 4 celsius and below the same temperatur.
> If you compresse it it will stop in liquid form at 4 degrees celcius.
>
> That is what you learn at primary school!!

I'm not even sure what that means.  You can apply pressure to water at 4 
°C and it will freeze.  Apply enough pressure and ice will form at room 
temperature.  If you read the right books, water will form ice (9) at 
room temperature and standard pressure.

-- 

Rick

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

#36662

On 18.02.2015 18:42, rickman wrote:

>
> I'm not even sure what that means.  You can apply pressure to water at 4
> °C and it will freeze.  Apply enough pressure and ice will form at room
> temperature.  If you read the right books, water will form ice (9) at
> room temperature and standard pressure.
>

Your enough starts from 200 MPa. A power washer generates about 10MPa. 
Some hydraulics can have 100MPa.

Anyway that kind of pressure in engine cooling system would be 
interesting and is out of scope of c.l.f as much as this thread.

I saw a demo more than 15 years ago. An ice bar and piano wire hanging 
some weight. The piano wire cut through the ice bar and the bar was 
still solid. This is the same effect which makes skating possible.


More about phases of water:
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html

Best regards,
Hannu Vuolasaho

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

#36673

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:
> > 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?
> > 
> > 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.
 
> 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, then 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-space, which will eventually blow the radiator cap --- but there is no air-space because I filled the radiator up to the brim --- so I still don't understand how the coolant can boil BEFORE the radiator cap has blown.

> That is what you learn at primary school!!

One of the things that they teach in primary school is grammar. Your sentence should use "this" rather than "that" because you are only referencing one thing (you can't have a "that" without a distinct "this," implying references to at least two things). Also, the preposition should be "in" rather than "at."

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 above 120F. It seems as if all the water on the planet would drain into the oceans, 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 seems like the atmosphere and all of the land should be totally dry and barren --- why do we have clouds and precipitation at all?

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

#36675

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 5:54:50 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 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 above 120F. It seems as if all the water on the
> planet would drain into the oceans, 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 seems like the atmosphere and all
> of the land should be totally dry and barren --- why do we have clouds
> and precipitation at all?
> 

You're forgetting the effects of evaporation (and to a lesser effect,
 sublimation), Hugh.  All liquids with which I'm familiar have a vapor
 pressure and this vapor is carried by the atmosphere to all parts of
 the globe.  The Earth's oceans contain about 300 quintillion gallons
 of water, and that makes for a lot of exposed liquid at the surface.

Mike

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

#36677

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 7:32:45 PM UTC-7, Michael Barry wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 5:54:50 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > 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 above 120F. It seems as if all the water on the
> > planet would drain into the oceans, 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 seems like the atmosphere and all
> > of the land should be totally dry and barren --- why do we have clouds
> > and precipitation at all?
> > 
> 
> You're forgetting the effects of evaporation (and to a lesser effect,
>  sublimation), Hugh.  All liquids with which I'm familiar have a vapor
>  pressure and this vapor is carried by the atmosphere to all parts of
>  the globe.  The Earth's oceans contain about 300 quintillion gallons
>  of water, and that makes for a lot of exposed liquid at the surface.
> 
> Mike

I thought "evaporation" and "boiling" were synonymous. Does evaporation work below the boiling temperature? Doesn't "vapor pressure" mean the atmospheric pressure required to prevent a liquid from during into a gas? Atmospheric pressure is at its maximum at the ocean surface, so the water isn't going to turn into steam unless it is heated to 212F or more to overcome the atmospheric pressure.

Also, I thought "sublimination" meant the conversion from a solid to a gas without an intermediate liquid stage --- this happens when the atmospheric pressure is extremely low (this is why there is no liquid water on the surface of Mars, as ice converts directly into vapor), but the atmospheric pressure on Earth is at its maximum on the surface of the ocean.

Can you explain further? Or direct me to some links? 

I have actually wondered about this all my life. When I was a boy I noticed that in winter steam could be seen rising off the highway as the slush melted, although the temperature outside was maybe 50F, which is not even close to 212F --- also, I didn't see steam rising in the summer when the temperature was 70F --- so why do we see steam rising in cold weather but not in warm weather?

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

#36679

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 6:58:19 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> I thought "evaporation" and "boiling" were synonymous.
> 

Boiling and evaporation are related, but not synonymous.

> 
> Does evaporation work below the boiling temperature?
> 

Most definitely.

http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/mtom/contents/glossary/images/h2ovp.gif

> 
> Doesn't "vapor pressure" mean the atmospheric pressure required to
> prevent a liquid from during into a gas?
>

I am not a chemist, but my understanding is that vapor pressure is the
 direct result of molecules of liquid escaping from the surface due to
 evaporation, which is proportional to temperature.  Even solids have
 a minute "vapor" pressure, and this pressure is only exactly zero at
 -273 °C or thereabouts.

> 
> Atmospheric pressure is at its maximum at the ocean surface, so the
> water isn't going to turn into steam unless it is heated to 212F or
> more to overcome the atmospheric pressure.
> 

I believe that this is incorrect.  Boiling and evaporation are
 related, but not synonymous.

> 
> Also, I thought "sublimination" meant the conversion from a solid
> to a gas without an intermediate liquid stage
> 

Yes ...

> 
> --- this happens when the atmospheric pressure is extremely low
> 

No ... it happens under a wide range of pressures and temperatures.

> (this is why there is no liquid water on the surface of Mars, as
> ice converts directly into vapor),
> 

Yes ...

> 
> but the atmospheric pressure on Earth is at its maximum on the
> surface of the ocean.
> 

It's still not enough to prevent the evaporation of sea water or
 (to a much lesser extent) the sublimation of sea ice.

> 
> Can you explain further? Or direct me to some links? 
> 

Sorry, I'm link-challenged at the moment.  But I'm sure that your
 favorite search engine could provide many hours of reading.

> 
> I have actually wondered about this all my life. When I was a
> boy I noticed that in winter steam could be seen rising off the
> highway as the slush melted, although the temperature outside
> was maybe 50F, which is not even close to 212F --- also, I
> didn't see steam rising in the summer when the temperature was
> 70F --- so why do we see steam rising in cold weather but not
> in warm weather?
> 

I'm not a chemist, but I believe that steam is usually invisible
 to the human eye.  What you were seeing in wintertime wasn't
 steam, but condensate, or something like that.  Sorry I can't
 be more informative off the top of my head ...

Mike

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

#36684

hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:

[%X]

> I thought "evaporation" and "boiling" were synonymous. Does evaporation
> work below the boiling temperature? Doesn't "vapor pressure" mean the
> atmospheric pressure required to prevent a liquid from during into a gas?
> Atmospheric pressure is at its maximum at the ocean surface, so the water
> isn't going to turn into steam unless it is heated to 212F or more to
> overcome the atmospheric pressure.
> 
> Also, I thought "sublimination" meant the conversion from a solid to a gas
> without an intermediate liquid stage --- this happens when the atmospheric
> pressure is extremely low (this is why there is no liquid water on the
> surface of Mars, as ice converts directly into vapor), but the atmospheric
> pressure on Earth is at its maximum on the surface of the ocean.
> 
> Can you explain further? Or direct me to some links?
> 
> I have actually wondered about this all my life. When I was a boy I
> noticed that in winter steam could be seen rising off the highway as the
> slush melted, although the temperature outside was maybe 50F, which is not
> even close to 212F --- also, I didn't see steam rising in the summer when
> the temperature was 70F --- so why do we see steam rising in cold weather
> but not in warm weather?

  The vapour pressure of wate is expressed in the formula

  P=log10P=A-(B/(C+T))

Where P= Pressure in mmHg
      T=Temperature (in degrees Celcius)

A, B and C are constants thus:
      A=8.07131
      B=1730.63
      C=233.426


Water will vapourise from just above its triple point to its critical point. 
Stranger things can happen above the critical point depending on the ambient 
environment.

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 TBA (due to  re-location)
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

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

#36682

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:54:49 -0500, <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote:

>> That is what you learn at primary school!!
>
> One of the things that they teach in primary school is grammar.

If so, why is there no comment from you on his doubled
exclamation points or misspellings? ...  You do realize
that he probably doesn't speak English as his native language,
yes?

> Your sentence should use "this" rather than "that" because
> you are only referencing one thing (you can't have a "that"
> without a distinct "this," implying references to at least
> two things).

I don't know where you get that from.  What makes you believe
that "that" must refer to more than one thing, or have a
corresponding "this"?

I can say either of the two following quoted sentences below
by itself in various situations.  Both are correct and have
different meaning and intent depending on the situation:

"This is my car."
E.g., on Wednesday, when indicating to my friend which car
was mine so he would stop walking.

"That is my car."
E.g., on Friday, when my car's engine failed and it was then
wrecked by a city bus.

"This is my car."
E.g., on Monday, when I bought a shiny new car.

"That is my car."
E.g., on Tueday, when the cop thought my car was involved in
the accident I witnessed.

"This is my car."
E.g., on Thursday, when showing a photo of my car to
my coworkers.

"That is my car."
E.g., later in the day on Thursday after losing my car photo
and using the internet to find a photo to show my coworkers
which car I bought.

Well? ...  It can only be argued that 2 of the 3 uses of
"that" have a corresponding, but unstated "this" to compare
"that" with.  It's clear that none of the uses of "that"
have any explicit, corresponding use of "this".

> Also, the preposition should be "in" rather than "at."

Also, "learn" needs to be changed to "learned", past
tense, unless you're _still_ attending primary school,
which I sincerely hope is not the case.

> Also, the preposition should be "in" rather than "at."

That's only true if _you_ went to primary school
since the "you" in the sentence refers to you, Hugh,
which is information he didn't have at the time he
wrote that.

I.e., if he didn't know that you went to primary school
and decided not to assume so, or assumed you didn't attend,
or intended to insult you by implying you never did attend
or learned nothing while there, then his use of "at" is
correct.

This is no different than being able to "talk to" someone,
"talk with" someone, or "talk at" someone.  Each has a
valid use and different meaning just as "learn in" and
"learn at" both have valid use and different meaning.

E.g., a truant student didn't "learn in" school since he
wasn't present, but he would've had something to "learn at"
school had he been there.

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.


Rod Pemberton

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

#36690

Op donderdag 19 februari 2015 11:29:25 UTC+1 schreef Rod Pemberton:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:54:49 -0500, <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >> That is what you learn at primary school!!
> >
> > One of the things that they teach in primary school is grammar.
> 
> If so, why is there no comment from you on his doubled
> exclamation points or misspellings? ...  You do realize
> that he probably doesn't speak English as his native language,
> yes?
> 
> > Your sentence should use "this" rather than "that" because
> > you are only referencing one thing (you can't have a "that"
> > without a distinct "this," implying references to at least
> > two things).
> 
> I don't know where you get that from.  What makes you believe
> that "that" must refer to more than one thing, or have a
> corresponding "this"?
> 
> I can say either of the two following quoted sentences below
> by itself in various situations.  Both are correct and have
> different meaning and intent depending on the situation:
> 
> "This is my car."
> E.g., on Wednesday, when indicating to my friend which car
> was mine so he would stop walking.
> 
> "That is my car."
> E.g., on Friday, when my car's engine failed and it was then
> wrecked by a city bus.
> 
> "This is my car."
> E.g., on Monday, when I bought a shiny new car.
> 
> "That is my car."
> E.g., on Tueday, when the cop thought my car was involved in
> the accident I witnessed.
> 
> "This is my car."
> E.g., on Thursday, when showing a photo of my car to
> my coworkers.
> 
> "That is my car."
> E.g., later in the day on Thursday after losing my car photo
> and using the internet to find a photo to show my coworkers
> which car I bought.
> 
> Well? ...  It can only be argued that 2 of the 3 uses of
> "that" have a corresponding, but unstated "this" to compare
> "that" with.  It's clear that none of the uses of "that"
> have any explicit, corresponding use of "this".
> 
> > Also, the preposition should be "in" rather than "at."
> 
> Also, "learn" needs to be changed to "learned", past
> tense, unless you're _still_ attending primary school,
> which I sincerely hope is not the case.
> 
> > Also, the preposition should be "in" rather than "at."
> 
> That's only true if _you_ went to primary school
> since the "you" in the sentence refers to you, Hugh,
> which is information he didn't have at the time he
> wrote that.
> 
> I.e., if he didn't know that you went to primary school
> and decided not to assume so, or assumed you didn't attend,
> or intended to insult you by implying you never did attend
> or learned nothing while there, then his use of "at" is
> correct.
> 
> This is no different than being able to "talk to" someone,
> "talk with" someone, or "talk at" someone.  Each has a
> valid use and different meaning just as "learn in" and
> "learn at" both have valid use and different meaning.
> 
> E.g., a truant student didn't "learn in" school since he
> wasn't present, but he would've had something to "learn at"
> school had he been there.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton

That's all quit true, to only three things I have to note are:

1- I'm female
2- I'm Dutch
3- I'm Dis-lactic

The only language I can write flawless is programming language.

Tessa
 

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

#36705

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:24:46 -0500, Tessa Bonting
<tessa.bonting@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's all quit true, to only three things I have to note are:
>
> 1- I'm female
> 2- I'm Dutch
> 3- I'm Dis-lactic

dyslexic ?

> The only language I can write flawless is programming language.

autistic ?


There is some hope:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-19/this-doctor-made-a-blind-man-see-and-an-autistic-boy-speak


Many computer programmers are suspected of having Asperger's
syndrome, a type of autism, or extreme introversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion


Rod Pemberton

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

#36715

Op vrijdag 20 februari 2015 01:39:59 UTC+1 schreef Rod Pemberton:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:24:46 -0500, Tessa Bonting
> <tessa.bonting@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > That's all quit true, to only three things I have to note are:
> >
> > 1- I'm female
> > 2- I'm Dutch
> > 3- I'm Dis-lactic
> 
> dyslexic ?
> 
> > The only language I can write flawless is programming language.
> 
> autistic ?
> 
> 
> There is some hope:
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-19/this-doctor-made-a-blind-man-see-and-an-autistic-boy-speak
> 
> 
> Many computer programmers are suspected of having Asperger's
> syndrome, a type of autism, or extreme introversion.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton

Dear Rod,

Now I have to go home and lock the 25 locks since that makes 7, seven times and stay there seven days, while my Boss will call me each day to please come to work and forget all those mean persons living on this earth.

But nice deduction. An totally nothing to do with the fact that water is at its minimum size at 4 decree Celsius, so it will expand when getting hotter en also when getting cooler, if it's not compressed to its minimum size then it wold not get hotter or cooler at all.

Tessa

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

#36722

Tessa Bonting wrote:
> Dear Rod,
> 
> Now I have to go home and lock the 25 locks since that makes 7, seven
> times and stay there seven days, while my Boss will call me each day to
> please come to work and forget all those mean persons living on this
> earth.

Please, simply killfile this idiot.  Also for the sake of others reading 
this group.  I hate this jerk, I've killfiled him long ago, and I don't want 
to read the bullshit he writes, but you quote him, discuss his sociopath 
nonsense, so I have to read it anyways.  My only way out would be to 
killfile everybody who replies to him, and that would mean killfile people I 
rather like, and want to read in general.

The world is a better place if the trolls live alone under their bridge, and 
everybody ignores them.  And usenet browsers make it actually easy to ignore 
those people.  It's better for you, it's better for me.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*

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

#36728

On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 4:42:22 AM UTC-7, Tessa Bonting wrote:
> Op vrijdag 20 februari 2015 01:39:59 UTC+1 schreef Rod Pemberton:
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:24:46 -0500, Tessa Bonting
> > <tessa.bonting@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > That's all quit true, to only three things I have to note are:
> > >
> > > 1- I'm female
> > > 2- I'm Dutch
> > > 3- I'm Dis-lactic
> > 
> > dyslexic ?
> > 
> > > The only language I can write flawless is programming language.
> > 
> > autistic ?
> > 
> > 
> > There is some hope:
> > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-19/this-doctor-made-a-blind-man-see-and-an-autistic-boy-speak
> > 
> > 
> > Many computer programmers are suspected of having Asperger's
> > syndrome, a type of autism, or extreme introversion.
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion
> > 
> > 
> > Rod Pemberton
 
> Dear Rod,
> 
> Now I have to go home and lock the 25 locks since that makes 7, seven times and stay there seven days, while my Boss will call me each day to please come to work and forget all those mean persons living on this earth.
> 
> But nice deduction. An totally nothing to do with the fact that water is at its minimum size at 4 decree Celsius, so it will expand when getting hotter en also when getting cooler, if it's not compressed to its minimum size then it wold not get hotter or cooler at all.
> 
> Tessa

I apologize for starting the whole thing about criticizing your grammar. I was miffed because you said that I should have learned about solids/liquids/gasses in primary school, and I thought that you were wrong anyway because water neither compresses nor expands when it is in liquid form --- but the whole beat-up-Tessa thing got out of control.

Note that I never said you had Asperger's Syndrom, autism, or even that you were "extremely introverted" --- Rod Pemberton is a jerk (there is no hope for him); he takes any seed of discontent and makes it grow like a weed. 

Rod's standard tactic is to purposefully misinterpret somebody's post to make the person look like an idiot, and draw the person into long tedious explanations of how he isn't actually an idiot. Rod's favorite target for this is Bernd Payson, which is why Bernd Payson hates him. This doesn't at all imply that Bernd Payson isn't capable of being a jerk too --- Bernd once told me that I deserve to work in construction rather than programming (I do work in construction) because I don't understand that reduced power-consumption is a good thing for micro-controllers --- note for Bernd: the modern incarnation of the MiniForth processor draws something like 1/10 the amperage of the 20-year-old original version, so apparently Testra also knows that reducing power-consumption is a good thing.

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

#36731

On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 1:45:44 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> ... and I thought that you were wrong anyway because water neither
> compresses nor expands when it is in liquid form --- 
> [ ... ]

Water does compress and expand when it is in liquid form, but not
 enough to matter in an automotive cooling system application.
 
> [ ... ]
> Rod's standard tactic is to purposefully misinterpret somebody's
> post to make the person look like an idiot, and draw the person
> into long tedious explanations of how he isn't actually an idiot.
> [ ... ]

Rod is very sharp, but has a tendency to use this sharpness in an
 abusive manner, not unlike some others on this group (who shall
 remain nameless, at least by me).  I am not really equipped to
 compete in pissing contests, so my normal tactic when pissed on
 is to make a single snide comment and move on.  I haven't had to
 do that here yet, and I'm thankful.

Mike

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

#36734

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:02:04 -0500, Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 1:45:44 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com  
> wrote:

> Rod is very sharp, but has a tendency to use this sharpness in an
> abusive manner, [...]

Since when?  I only argue against people when they say something
that is clearly wrong, in order to get them to understand their
mistake ...  The problem is that you just can't help some people.
But, sometimes I just let it go, e.g., Alex McDonald never explains
himself, even when given the chance, as I did recently.  I'm still
waiting for an explanation of what is "wrong" with my understanding
of control flow that will simply never come.

> [...] not unlike some others on this group (who shall
>  remain nameless, at least by me).

Oh, naming people is easy.  I've been here a decade and
remember much of the crap people say here.  The long-term,
permanent, comp.lang.forth trolls, and true assholes here are:

Bernd Payson, Hugh Aquilar, Alex McDonald, and rickman.
Europeans tend to drink more which could explain two
of them.  One of them even admitted to attacking me
while drunk.

The worst of them, John Passaniti, was driven away some
years ago.  You'll even find Hugh still ripping on J.P. a
good five years after he left, and Hugh is a major troll.
Unfortunately, Hugh knows some Forth.  You really have no
idea how bad J.P. was.  It was like verbal horror movie in
here with him around: racism, homosexuality, beastility,
telling guys here he wanted to rape them, intense verbal
abuse, inciting of arguments, and constant conversations
on programming languages that no one here wanted to discuss.
Three of the assholes above repeatedly told J.P. to leave.
Bernd Paysan told him to leave for over a decade.  Think
about that.  It was really a bad scene dude, until I got
here ...

E.g., Hugh Aquilar, the guy you just responded to, attacks
the elderly Ms. Rather without provocation or any justification
repeatedly and for about a decade now.  This is probably the
only post in a while where he hasn't attacked, because he
decided to attack me.  When she was a victim in a hit and run,
right after she came out of the hospital, Hugh wished that she
would've died in the accident!  How cruel is that?  That's
a true asshole.

E.g., Bernd Paysan insults just about everyone who responds
to him, promotes hated of non-E.U. people.  The worst though
is his promotion of Nazism.  He talks incessantly about E.U.
politics, distorted versions of E.U. history, and misguided
perspectives on the world.  He hates me because I promote the
U.S., U.S. values, and freedom.  I've also repeatedly found
flaws in his logic.  That really crushes him.  He thinks he's
a genious because he's a circuit designer. I'm really surprised
he isn't a terrorist.  From the stuff he's said, he'd be on
my watchlist, e.g., I could easily assume that he was one of
the Charlie Hebdo bombers from past comments.

E.g., Alex McDonald declares everyone to be wrong to incite
arguments, but never, ever provides any explanation.  He
constantly forgets the context of the thread and requotes
entire paragraphs out of context, e.g., he recently took
questions I posed of Hugh completely out-of-context, then
he declared them to be wrong!  How can a question of someone
else be wrong?  What type of insane nutjob declares a question
to be wrong?  How loony is that? ...

E.g., 'rickman' who won't stop discussing microprocessors
in a Forth programming group.  He uses the Forth GA144 as
an excuse to start these topics.  He has a small number of
people who respond to him, so he doesn't stop.  These
people don't seem to be involved in Forth topics, pop up
out of nowhere, disappear just as fast.

Unfortunately, even nice people, like Ms. Rather attack
others here due to the hostility created by the guys I
mentioned above.  Hugh is relentless on attacking her.
E.g., she has attacked me over apostrophes for years,
which is apparently a pet peave of hers, before I
started pointing out her own problems with spelling.

Your only issue with discussing this is that you simply
haven't been here long enough to take note of these things.


Rod Pemberton

-- 
Cars kill more people than guns in the U.S.
Yet, no one is trying to take away your car.

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

#36736

On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 8:12:02 PM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> E.g., 'rickman' who won't stop discussing microprocessors
> in a Forth programming group.  

I am wondering, because I am relatively new to c.l.f., I wasn't here in those glorious usenet times.

Am I making a mistake when thinking that c.l.f is about programming in Forth, especially programming microprocessors using Forth, because Forth is the best programming language for microprocessors which normally have restricted memory space?

And if so, is there a fork to Forth for microprocessors?

I tried to find rules about content on c.l.f., but to now avail. Are there any?

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

#36738

On 2/20/15 4:28 PM, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 8:12:02 PM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
>> E.g., 'rickman' who won't stop discussing microprocessors
>> in a Forth programming group.
>
> I am wondering, because I am relatively new to c.l.f., I wasn't here in those glorious usenet times.
>
> Am I making a mistake when thinking that c.l.f is about programming in Forth, especially programming microprocessors using Forth, because Forth is the best programming language for microprocessors which normally have restricted memory space?
>
> And if so, is there a fork to Forth for microprocessors?
>
> I tried to find rules about content on c.l.f., but to now avail. Are there any?
>

This is pretty much the place for Forth for Microprocessors. There are a 
number of cross-compilers. Someone up-thread mentioned FORTH, Inc. and 
MPE. FORTH, Inc. supports interactive cross-compilers for most of the 
common microcontrollers, hosted on Windows, Linux, and OSX, with 
extensive documentation and support. Free evaluation versions are 
available. For more information, see www.forth.com. We have been 
supporting professional Forth programmers since the 1970's.

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]

#36747

On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 10:49:59 PM UTC-5, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 2/20/15 4:28 PM, visualforth.com wrote:
> > On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 8:12:02 PM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >
> >> E.g., 'rickman' who won't stop discussing microprocessors
> >> in a Forth programming group.
> >
> > I am wondering, because I am relatively new to c.l.f., I wasn't here in those glorious usenet times.
> >
> > Am I making a mistake when thinking that c.l.f is about programming in Forth, especially programming microprocessors using Forth, because Forth is the best programming language for microprocessors which normally have restricted memory space?
> >
> > And if so, is there a fork to Forth for microprocessors?
> >
> > I tried to find rules about content on c.l.f., but to now avail. Are there any?
> >
> 
> This is pretty much the place for Forth for Microprocessors. There are a 
> number of cross-compilers. Someone up-thread mentioned FORTH, Inc. and 
> MPE. FORTH, Inc. supports interactive cross-compilers for most of the 
> common microcontrollers, hosted on Windows, Linux, and OSX, with 
> extensive documentation and support. Free evaluation versions are 
> available. For more information, see www.forth.com. We have been 
> supporting professional Forth programmers since the 1970's.
> 
> 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."
> ==================================================

Elizabeth, 
Thanks for reassuring!
I looked at http://www.forth.com and found a free "SwiftX MSP430 for the TI MSP430". My idea is to test it with TI's G2 LaunchPad, so I downloaded Forth Inc.'s SwiftX MSP430 for the TI MSP430.

I opened the swiftx-msp430.pdf and there it says:

1.3 Run Demo
A demo application is included with most SwiftX systems. Follow the instructions in the SwiftX Reference Manual, Section 1.5.3. 

But there is no "SwiftX Reference Manual". I googled for "SwiftX Reference Manual", but only references to a "SwiftX Reference Manual" came up, no download.

How shall I proceed?

Something is missing there.

Dirk.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web