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


Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #80030 > unrolled thread

This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ?

Started byc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
First post2025-12-29 05:31 -0500
Last post2026-01-02 07:25 +0000
Articles 20 on this page of 88 — 14 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc


Contents

  This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-29 05:31 -0500
    Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-29 11:25 -0500
      Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2026-01-01 14:29 +1100
        Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-01 13:22 +0000
          Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-01 23:22 -0500
            Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-02 07:29 +0000
              Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 06:08 -0500
                Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 01:34 +0000
                  Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 21:19 -0500
                    Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 21:55 +0000
            Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-02 11:45 +0100
              Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 06:16 -0500
                Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2026-01-02 17:10 +0000
                  Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 14:55 -0500
                    Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-02 22:07 +0100
                Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-02 22:19 +0100
                Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 01:42 +0000
                  Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 21:21 -0500
                    Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2026-01-03 08:46 +0000
                      Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-03 14:35 +0100
                      Re: Sun Position (was Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ?) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-03 22:00 +0000
        Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2026-01-01 14:50 +0000
          Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 02:22 -0500
            DUC[KT] tape Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-01-02 14:48 +0000
              Re: DUC[KT] tape Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-01-02 14:56 +0000
                Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 10:21 -0500
                  Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 01:58 +0000
                Re: DUC[KT] tape Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2026-01-05 11:28 +1100
                  Re: DUC[KT] tape Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-01-06 13:32 +0000
                  Re: DUC[KT] tape Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-01-07 02:14 +0000
                    Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-06 22:42 -0500
                      Re: DUC[KT] tape Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-07 06:33 +0000
                        Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-07 09:33 +0000
                        Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-07 18:45 -0500
                          Re: DUC[KT] tape Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2026-01-09 12:13 +1100
                            Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-10 02:52 +0000
                              Re: DUC[KT] tape Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-01-10 10:20 +0000
                                Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-10 20:07 +0000
                                  Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-10 20:45 -0500
                                    Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-11 06:02 +0000
                                      Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-11 01:30 -0500
                                        Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-11 22:17 +0000
                                          Re: DUC[KT] tape Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2026-01-16 12:32 +1100
                                    Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-11 12:04 +0000
                    Re: DUC[KT] tape vs Gaffer tape Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-01-07 14:40 +0000
              Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 10:16 -0500
                Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 01:59 +0000
              Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 01:48 +0000
                Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 21:39 -0500
                  Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-03 08:42 +0000
                    Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-03 07:09 -0500
                      Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-03 13:58 +0000
                    Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 21:35 +0000
                      Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-03 16:56 -0500
                        Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-03 23:01 +0000
                        Re: DUC[KT] tape Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-01-03 23:38 +0000
                          Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-03 19:51 -0500
                            Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-04 05:42 +0000
                              Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-04 11:02 +0000
                                Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-05 00:31 +0000
                            Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-04 10:56 +0000
                          Re: DUC[KT] tape "Worst Case"@dizum.com - 2026-01-04 19:05 +0100
                          Re: DUC[KT] tape "Worst Case"@dizum.com - 2026-01-04 21:07 +0100
                        Re: DUC[KT] tape Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-03 23:41 +0000
                          Re: DUC[KT] tape c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-03 20:31 -0500
                            Re: DUC[KT] tape Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-04 10:48 +0000
                              Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-04 10:53 +0000
                          Re: DUC[KT] tape The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-04 10:52 +0000
                        Re: DUC[KT] tape rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-04 06:05 +0000
                  Re: DUC[KT] tape Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-01-03 14:26 +0000
        Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 19:21 +0000
          Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 02:56 -0500
            Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2026-01-03 00:50 +1100
            Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-03 01:21 +0000
            Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-05 12:44 +0100
        Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-01 21:48 +0000
          Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? "Rinaldi J. Montessi" <rinaldij@alien.free> - 2026-01-01 17:23 -0600
            Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 23:56 +0000
              Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-02 02:18 +0000
                Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-02 05:02 +0000
                  Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-02 06:04 +0000
                    Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-02 21:27 +0000
                      Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-03 00:18 +0000
                      Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-02 21:44 -0500
                        Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-03 06:09 +0000
                          Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-03 08:41 +0000
                            Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-05 12:52 +0100
            Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-02 07:25 +0000

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →


#80438 — Re: Sun Position (was Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ?)

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-01-03 22:00 +0000
SubjectRe: Sun Position (was Re: This Is a Job For - Polarizing Film ?)
Message-ID<10jc3h8$1i4ia$8@dont-email.me>
In reply to#80405
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 08:46:48 +0000, Mike Scott wrote:

>> https://pypi.org/project/astral/
>
> Can't have too much of a good thing :-}

I have used this <https://packages.debian.org/trixie/python3-pysolar>.

> I wonder if they give the same results though? Might be interesting
> to cross-check them.

Like any good scientist. ;)

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


#80236

FromMike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid>
Date2026-01-01 14:50 +0000
Message-ID<10j61ja$3hv7b$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#80229
On 01/01/2026 03:29, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood wrote:
> Groovy hepcat c186282 was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Tue, 30 Dec
> 2025 03:25 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.
> 
>>     Had some non-stick film, and duck tape. SEEMS
> 
>    Forgive the spelling correction here; but unless it quacks and
> waddles, that's duct tape. :)
> 

https://www.ducktape.co.uk/


-- 
Mike Scott
Harlow, England

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


#80284

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-01-02 02:22 -0500
Message-ID<7cadnTFwKKy978r0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#80236
On 1/1/26 09:50, Mike Scott wrote:
> On 01/01/2026 03:29, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood wrote:
>> Groovy hepcat c186282 was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Tue, 30 Dec
>> 2025 03:25 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.
>>
>>>     Had some non-stick film, and duck tape. SEEMS
>>
>>    Forgive the spelling correction here; but unless it quacks and
>> waddles, that's duct tape. :)
>>
> 
> https://www.ducktape.co.uk/

   Yep, originally "Duck" ... then later, likely
   for brand-name legal reasons, oft said "Duct".

   It IS good for 'ducts' too.

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


#80317 — DUC[KT] tape

FromLars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com>
Date2026-01-02 14:48 +0000
SubjectDUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<slrn10lfmmb.95fc.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com>
In reply to#80284
> On 1/1/26 09:50, Mike Scott wrote:
>> https://www.ducktape.co.uk/

On 2026-01-02, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>    Yep, originally "Duck" ... then later, likely
>    for brand-name legal reasons, oft said "Duct".
>
>    It IS good for 'ducts' too.

My nieces in Denmark call it Gaffer tape.

My understanding is that it was developed for sealing ammunition
canisters in WW2, and the grunts called it duck tape.

Forced air heating with ducts that needed sealing were not common until
later.

-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

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


#80319 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

FromAndy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
Date2026-01-02 14:56 +0000
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<mrq4l0F135kU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#80317
Lars Poulsen wrote:

> My nieces in Denmark call it Gaffer tape.

gaffer tape is different, designed to come off cleanly when used e.g. 
for marking positions on stage

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


#80322 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-01-02 10:21 -0500
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<Nt2dnSf-yfPif8r0nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#80319
On 1/2/26 09:56, Andy Burns wrote:
> Lars Poulsen wrote:
> 
>> My nieces in Denmark call it Gaffer tape.
> 
> gaffer tape is different, designed to come off cleanly when used e.g. 
> for marking positions on stage

   Yea, it's more a a paper-based tape whereas Duck/Duct
   is cloth. I've used 'gaffer' tape before and it does
   tread the line between "sticky ENOUGH" and "still
   removable". There's a less-sticky tape that's popular
   now intended to mask off stuff being painted and I've
   seen that used for marking off areas as well.

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


#80381 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

Fromrbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date2026-01-03 01:58 +0000
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<mrrbepF6n51U8@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#80322
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 10:21:34 -0500, c186282 wrote:

> On 1/2/26 09:56, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Lars Poulsen wrote:
>> 
>>> My nieces in Denmark call it Gaffer tape.
>> 
>> gaffer tape is different, designed to come off cleanly when used e.g.
>> for marking positions on stage

> 
>    Yea, it's more a a paper-based tape whereas Duck/Duct is cloth. I've
>    used 'gaffer' tape before and it does tread the line between "sticky
>    ENOUGH" and "still removable". There's a less-sticky tape that's
>    popular now intended to mask off stuff being painted and I've seen
>    that used for marking off areas as well.

I've got a roll of that. It's blue to differentiate it from 'masking 
tape'. 

https://www.scotchblue.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b00035531/

I had a bad experience using the standard masking tape on French doors.  
You really want to get that stuff off in a timely fashion. The blue 
painters tape is more forgiving.

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


#80577 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

FromPeter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au>
Date2026-01-05 11:28 +1100
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<g6dr2m-us1.ln1@otis.foo>
In reply to#80319
Groovy hepcat Andy Burns was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Sat, 3 Jan
2026 01:56 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.

> Lars Poulsen wrote:
> 
>> My nieces in Denmark call it Gaffer tape.
> 
> gaffer tape is different, designed to come off cleanly when used e.g.
> for marking positions on stage

  No, gaffer tape is electrical tape. Gaffers are stage/movie/TV
electricians. They rig up wiring for the lighting, etc.

-- 


----- Dig the NEW and IMPROVED news sig!! -----


-------------- Shaggy was here! ---------------
              Ain't I'm a dawg!!

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


#80578 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

FromAndy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
Date2026-01-06 13:32 +0000
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<ms4h7hFnhq5U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#80577
Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
> 
>> gaffer tape is different, designed to come off cleanly when used e.g.
>> for marking positions on stage
> 
> No, gaffer tape is electrical tape. Gaffers are stage/movie/TV
> electricians. They rig up wiring for the lighting, etc.

Doesn't stop the tape being used for various purposes, see description

<https://stagedepot.co.uk/essentials/tape#:~:text=Gaffer%20Tapes>

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


#80645 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

FromRobert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net>
Date2026-01-07 02:14 +0000
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<slrn10lrgbb.48e.spamtrap42@one.localnet>
In reply to#80577
On 2026-01-05, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> Groovy hepcat Andy Burns was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Sat, 3 Jan
> 2026 01:56 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.
>
>> Lars Poulsen wrote:
>> 
>>> My nieces in Denmark call it Gaffer tape.
>> 
>> gaffer tape is different, designed to come off cleanly when used e.g.
>> for marking positions on stage
>
>   No, gaffer tape is electrical tape. Gaffers are stage/movie/TV
> electricians. They rig up wiring for the lighting, etc.

At least in the US since the latter 1970s for "gaffer tape" and
since the 1960s for "electrical tape", the two are drastically
different:

- electrical tape is stretchable, about 3/4" wide, and it is used
  for wrapping bare wires to prevent short circuiting

- gaffer tape does not stretch substantially, is about 2" wide,
  and is used for making sure (already-insulated) cables don't
  move around on the floor, walls, etc.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

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


#80648 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-01-06 22:42 -0500
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<w62dnT8D47y9S8D0nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#80645
On 1/6/26 21:14, Robert Riches wrote:
> On 2026-01-05, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>> Groovy hepcat Andy Burns was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Sat, 3 Jan
>> 2026 01:56 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.
>>
>>> Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> My nieces in Denmark call it Gaffer tape.
>>>
>>> gaffer tape is different, designed to come off cleanly when used e.g.
>>> for marking positions on stage
>>
>>    No, gaffer tape is electrical tape. Gaffers are stage/movie/TV
>> electricians. They rig up wiring for the lighting, etc.
> 
> At least in the US since the latter 1970s for "gaffer tape" and
> since the 1960s for "electrical tape", the two are drastically
> different:
> 
> - electrical tape is stretchable, about 3/4" wide, and it is used
>    for wrapping bare wires to prevent short circuiting
> 
> - gaffer tape does not stretch substantially, is about 2" wide,
>    and is used for making sure (already-insulated) cables don't
>    move around on the floor, walls, etc.


   Before everyone gets nasty, consider that there
   is no EXACT def of 'gaffer tape'. I've seen wide
   'electrical tape' marketed as such, also various
   kinds of paper and cloth based tapes over the
   years.

   So don't get into the whole "How many angels on
   the head of a pin" kind of religion here. Brands,
   brand-names, commerce ... defs VARY and DRIFT.

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


#80653 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

FromCharlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date2026-01-07 06:33 +0000
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<g7n7R.1472891$79B9.774092@fx14.iad>
In reply to#80648
On 2026-01-07, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

> On 1/6/26 21:14, Robert Riches wrote:
>
>> On 2026-01-05, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Groovy hepcat Andy Burns was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Sat, 3 Jan
>>> 2026 01:56 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.
>>>
>>>> Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My nieces in Denmark call it Gaffer tape.
>>>>
>>>> gaffer tape is different, designed to come off cleanly when used e.g.
>>>> for marking positions on stage
>>>
>>>    No, gaffer tape is electrical tape. Gaffers are stage/movie/TV
>>> electricians. They rig up wiring for the lighting, etc.
>> 
>> At least in the US since the latter 1970s for "gaffer tape" and
>> since the 1960s for "electrical tape", the two are drastically
>> different:
>> 
>> - electrical tape is stretchable, about 3/4" wide, and it is used
>>    for wrapping bare wires to prevent short circuiting
>> 
>> - gaffer tape does not stretch substantially, is about 2" wide,
>>    and is used for making sure (already-insulated) cables don't
>>    move around on the floor, walls, etc.
>
>    Before everyone gets nasty, consider that there
>    is no EXACT def of 'gaffer tape'. I've seen wide
>    'electrical tape' marketed as such, also various
>    kinds of paper and cloth based tapes over the
>    years.
>
>    So don't get into the whole "How many angels on
>    the head of a pin" kind of religion here. Brands,
>    brand-names, commerce ... defs VARY and DRIFT.

True - but gaffer tape tends to be cloth-backed (visible fibers),
while "electrical tape" (at least in these parts) is a simple strip
of adhesive-coated plastic.

The chief differences between gaffer tape and duct tape are that
gaffer tape is usually black while duct tape is silver, and the
adhesive in gaffer tape doesn't leave as much nasty residue.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Growth for the sake of
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  growth is the ideology
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  of the cancer cell.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Edward Abbey

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


#80659 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-01-07 09:33 +0000
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<10jl992$h5hi$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#80653
On 07/01/2026 06:33, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> The chief differences between gaffer tape and duct tape are that
> gaffer tape is usually black while duct tape is silver, and the
> adhesive in gaffer tape doesn't leave as much nasty residue.
> 
In the UK back in the day the roadies all used the silver sort.

-- 
    "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have 
forgotten your aim."

  George Santayana

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


#80712 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-01-07 18:45 -0500
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<E5mcnWdDiv20bcP0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#80653
On 1/7/26 01:33, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-01-07, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 1/6/26 21:14, Robert Riches wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-01-05, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Groovy hepcat Andy Burns was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Sat, 3 Jan
>>>> 2026 01:56 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.
>>>>
>>>>> Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My nieces in Denmark call it Gaffer tape.
>>>>>
>>>>> gaffer tape is different, designed to come off cleanly when used e.g.
>>>>> for marking positions on stage
>>>>
>>>>     No, gaffer tape is electrical tape. Gaffers are stage/movie/TV
>>>> electricians. They rig up wiring for the lighting, etc.
>>>
>>> At least in the US since the latter 1970s for "gaffer tape" and
>>> since the 1960s for "electrical tape", the two are drastically
>>> different:
>>>
>>> - electrical tape is stretchable, about 3/4" wide, and it is used
>>>     for wrapping bare wires to prevent short circuiting
>>>
>>> - gaffer tape does not stretch substantially, is about 2" wide,
>>>     and is used for making sure (already-insulated) cables don't
>>>     move around on the floor, walls, etc.
>>
>>     Before everyone gets nasty, consider that there
>>     is no EXACT def of 'gaffer tape'. I've seen wide
>>     'electrical tape' marketed as such, also various
>>     kinds of paper and cloth based tapes over the
>>     years.
>>
>>     So don't get into the whole "How many angels on
>>     the head of a pin" kind of religion here. Brands,
>>     brand-names, commerce ... defs VARY and DRIFT.
> 
> True - but gaffer tape tends to be cloth-backed (visible fibers),
> while "electrical tape" (at least in these parts) is a simple strip
> of adhesive-coated plastic.
> 
> The chief differences between gaffer tape and duct tape are that
> gaffer tape is usually black while duct tape is silver, and the
> adhesive in gaffer tape doesn't leave as much nasty residue.


   The nasty residue bit can be important !

   Note that even the term "electrical tape" is not
   definitive. Most common now is the PVC stuff with
   a sticky back. However before that it was very
   much a 'rubber' tape with a little stickiness (you
   can still buy it) and for inside work there was
   an even earlier stuff called 'friction tape' which
   was very lightly tacky cloth (which I also think
   you can still get) that could handle more heat.

   According to Amazon, THIS is "gaffer tape" :

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000QC0XZO/?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_plhdr=t&aaxitk=0ca390723e5c902307a9301a0ee7d132&hsa_cr_id=7503656610801&qid=1767829081&sr=1-1-9e67e56a-6f64-441f-a281-df67fc737124&ref_=sbx_s_sparkle_sbtcd_asin_0_img&pd_rd_w=5HvXD&content-id=amzn1.sym.9f2b2b9e-47e9-4764-a4dc-2be2f6fca36d%3Aamzn1.sym.9f2b2b9e-47e9-4764-a4dc-2be2f6fca36d&pf_rd_p=9f2b2b9e-47e9-4764-a4dc-2be2f6fca36d&pf_rd_r=Q4240N1Z3GKPKKEVPWBD&pd_rd_wg=or9jJ&pd_rd_r=e8f36554-8e7e-41a4-9793-4e75b13c652d

   Described as :

11-mil thick black matte cloth gaffer's tape with rubber adhesive 
conforms well to irregular surfaces for labeling, and temporary
securing and sealing applications

Adhesive removes cleanly from most surfaces

Tape resists abrasion and can be torn by hand

Can be used outdoors and withstands temperatures from 50 to
200 degrees F

   Which seems similar to duck/duct tape but with a
   less nasty adhesive.

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


#80807 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

FromPeter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au>
Date2026-01-09 12:13 +1100
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<aa163m-582.ln1@otis.foo>
In reply to#80712
Groovy hepcat c186282 was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Thu, 8 Jan
2026 10:45 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.

> On 1/7/26 01:33, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2026-01-07, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1/6/26 21:14, Robert Riches wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2026-01-05, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Groovy hepcat Andy Burns was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Sat,
>>>>> 3 Jan 2026 01:56 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My nieces in Denmark call it Gaffer tape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gaffer tape is different, designed to come off cleanly when used
>>>>>> e.g. for marking positions on stage
>>>>>
>>>>>     No, gaffer tape is electrical tape. Gaffers are stage/movie/TV
>>>>> electricians. They rig up wiring for the lighting, etc.
>>>>
>>>> At least in the US since the latter 1970s for "gaffer tape" and
>>>> since the 1960s for "electrical tape", the two are drastically
>>>> different:
>>>>
>>>> - electrical tape is stretchable, about 3/4" wide, and it is used
>>>>     for wrapping bare wires to prevent short circuiting
>>>>
>>>> - gaffer tape does not stretch substantially, is about 2" wide,
>>>>     and is used for making sure (already-insulated) cables don't
>>>>     move around on the floor, walls, etc.
>>>
>>>     Before everyone gets nasty, consider that there
>>>     is no EXACT def of 'gaffer tape'. I've seen wide
>>>     'electrical tape' marketed as such, also various
>>>     kinds of paper and cloth based tapes over the
>>>     years.
>>>
>>>     So don't get into the whole "How many angels on
>>>     the head of a pin" kind of religion here. Brands,
>>>     brand-names, commerce ... defs VARY and DRIFT.

  Relax! Noone's getting nasty. We're just having a friendly discussion.
It's all good.

>> True - but gaffer tape tends to be cloth-backed (visible fibers),
>> while "electrical tape" (at least in these parts) is a simple strip
>> of adhesive-coated plastic.
>> 
>> The chief differences between gaffer tape and duct tape are that
>> gaffer tape is usually black while duct tape is silver, and the
>> adhesive in gaffer tape doesn't leave as much nasty residue.
> 
> 
>    The nasty residue bit can be important !
> 
>    Note that even the term "electrical tape" is not
>    definitive.

  That's true. It's more of a generic term for a range of different
tapes.

>    Most common now is the PVC stuff with 
>    a sticky back. However before that it was very
>    much a 'rubber' tape with a little stickiness (you
>    can still buy it) and for inside work there was
>    an even earlier stuff called 'friction tape' which
>    was very lightly tacky cloth (which I also think
>    you can still get) that could handle more heat.
> 
>    According to Amazon, THIS is "gaffer tape" :
> 
>
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000QC0XZO/?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_plhdr=t&aaxitk=0ca390723e5c902307a9301a0ee7d132&hsa_cr_id=7503656610801&qid=1767829081&sr=1-1-9e67e56a-6f64-441f-a281-df67fc737124&ref_=sbx_s_sparkle_sbtcd_asin_0_img&pd_rd_w=5HvXD&content-id=amzn1.sym.9f2b2b9e-47e9-4764-a4dc-2be2f6fca36d%3Aamzn1.sym.9f2b2b9e-47e9-4764-a4dc-2be2f6fca36d&pf_rd_p=9f2b2b9e-47e9-4764-a4dc-2be2f6fca36d&pf_rd_r=Q4240N1Z3GKPKKEVPWBD&pd_rd_wg=or9jJ&pd_rd_r=e8f36554-8e7e-41a4-9793-4e75b13c652d
> 
>    Described as :
> 
> 11-mil thick black matte cloth gaffer's tape with rubber adhesive
> conforms well to irregular surfaces for labeling, and temporary
> securing and sealing applications
> 
> Adhesive removes cleanly from most surfaces
> 
> Tape resists abrasion and can be torn by hand
> 
> Can be used outdoors and withstands temperatures from 50 to
> 200 degrees F
> 
>    Which seems similar to duck/duct tape but with a
>    less nasty adhesive.

  Interesting!
  But maybe the term means different things in different regions. In
these parts "gaffer tape" generally refers to PVC electricians' tape
with fairly strong(ish) adhesion. But I've often bought black cloth
tape similar to... y'know.. that other type of tape: the waddling &
quacking kind. ;) This has strong adhesion, so is not easily removed. I
can understand, and have no problem, if people call that gaffer tape.
Though it's not marketed as that here (as far as I've seen), it
certainly falls into the category of electricians' tape.

-- 


----- Dig the NEW and IMPROVED news sig!! -----


-------------- Shaggy was here! ---------------
              Ain't I'm a dawg!!

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


#80835 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

Fromrbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date2026-01-10 02:52 +0000
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<msdt6sFajq7U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#80807
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 12:13:14 +1100, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood wrote:

>   But maybe the term means different things in different regions. In
> these parts "gaffer tape" generally refers to PVC electricians' tape
> with fairly strong(ish) adhesion. But I've often bought black cloth tape
> similar to... y'know.. that other type of tape: the waddling & quacking
> kind.  This has strong adhesion, so is not easily removed. I can
> understand, and have no problem, if people call that gaffer tape.
> Though it's not marketed as that here (as far as I've seen), it
> certainly falls into the category of electricians' tape.

To further muddy the water when I was a kid we used friction tape for wire 
splices and many other things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction_tape

https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/electrical-construction-maintenance-us/
products/electrical-tapes/vinyl-electrical-tape/electrical-tape-history/

That matches my memories that Scotch 33 wasn't commonly used until the 
'60s.

Then there's rubber tape.

https://www.musson.com/rubber-tape.html


Like it says for large motors and transformers we used ring tongue crimped 
on connectors screwed together by short 8-32 screws and nuts, wrapped with 
rubber tape to make a nice, smooth ball, and then a layer of PVC for 
abrasion resistance. PVC alone doesn't conform too well to that sort of 
splice.


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


#80839 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

FromAndy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
Date2026-01-10 10:20 +0000
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<msenevFenu3U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#80835
rbowman wrote:

> To further muddy the water when I was a kid we used friction tape for wire
> splices and many other things.
And you can see how tapes like that developed over time to create e.g. 
HPHT (hot pink hockey stick tape), or cohesive bandages (buy as 3M coban 
if you're human, or as 3M vetwrap if you're a cheapskate).

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


#80856 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

Fromrbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date2026-01-10 20:07 +0000
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<msfpr9Fk2d8U6@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#80839
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:20:16 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

> rbowman wrote:
> 
>> To further muddy the water when I was a kid we used friction tape for
>> wire splices and many other things.
> And you can see how tapes like that developed over time to create e.g.
> HPHT (hot pink hockey stick tape), or cohesive bandages (buy as 3M coban
> if you're human, or as 3M vetwrap if you're a cheapskate).

Yeah, I got a wad of that after the blood draw for my annual physical a 
couple of weeks ago. Handy stuff. For a lot of things it works better than 
the old Ace bandages that tried to unravel while you were putting the 
clips on.

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


#80869 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-01-10 20:45 -0500
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<546dnQn9vYk-nf70nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#80856
On 1/10/26 15:07, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 10:20:16 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:
> 
>> rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> To further muddy the water when I was a kid we used friction tape for
>>> wire splices and many other things.
>> And you can see how tapes like that developed over time to create e.g.
>> HPHT (hot pink hockey stick tape), or cohesive bandages (buy as 3M coban
>> if you're human, or as 3M vetwrap if you're a cheapskate).
> 
> Yeah, I got a wad of that after the blood draw for my annual physical a
> couple of weeks ago. Handy stuff. For a lot of things it works better than
> the old Ace bandages that tried to unravel while you were putting the
> clips on.

   The new stuff that's very slightly self-sticky
   IS a hell of a lot better than the original
   stretch bandage fer sure.

   However don't use it as electrical tape  :-)

   In the 20s/30s/40s the cloth "friction tape"
   was widely used for indoor wiring. Of course
   the wires were also 'insulated' by a cloth-weave
   coating, not PVC or rubber. Rubber was for
   outdoor wiring.

   Friction tape is still sometimes used to bundle
   wires, not so much as an insulator.

   Most forget that flexible plastics were mostly
   the product of the WW2 defense industry. For
   example polyethylene was the godsend for
   radar-frequency antenna cables. About the only
   plastic anyone saw before the war was Bakelite,
   but that's a rigid thermoset. "Rubber" came
   from TREES ... it wasn't until the war they
   came up with and used synthetic rubber in
   the mix because there wasn't enough of the
   natural stuff.

   Well, there was one other 'plastic' - nitrocellulose.
   Was rumored to EXPLODE sometimes and there's a reason
   for the term "film/projector VAULT".

   But hey ... the plastics industry had one immediate
   civvie success - "nylons"  :-)

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


#80885 — Re: DUC[KT] tape

Fromrbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date2026-01-11 06:02 +0000
SubjectRe: DUC[KT] tape
Message-ID<msgso9Fph4uU4@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#80869
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 20:45:00 -0500, c186282 wrote:

> "Rubber" came
>    from TREES ... it wasn't until the war they came up with and used
>    synthetic rubber in the mix because there wasn't enough of the
>    natural stuff.

https://sternrubber.com/blog/rubber-wizard-menlo-park/

The Ft. Meyers museum is worth a visit. From there it's a short drive to 
Estero to bone up on the hollow earth theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreshan_Unity

The Waco whackjob wasn't the first Koresh.

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


Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc


csiph-web