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

Groups > sci.physics > #529095 > unrolled thread

Wrench Physics Question

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 06:47 +0000
    Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 08:09 -0500
      Re: Wrench Physics Question Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 08:50 -0500
        Re: Wrench Physics Question jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 17:10 +0000
          Re: Wrench Physics Question gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-30 20:54 -0500
          Re: Wrench Physics Question Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 21:35 -0500
      Re: Wrench Physics Question jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 17:08 +0000
      Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 17:23 +0000
        Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 12:44 -0500
          Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 17:58 +0000
          Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 18:08 +0000
            Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:37 -0500
              Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 20:42 +0000
                Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:51 -0500
          Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 18:14 +0000
            Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:40 -0500
              Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 21:13 +0000
                Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 16:29 -0500
                  Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 21:59 +0000
                    Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 17:15 -0500
                      Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 22:31 +0000
                        Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 21:09 -0500
                          Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-31 02:22 +0000
                  Re: Wrench Physics Question xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-30 20:27 -0700
                    Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-31 04:23 +0000
                      Re: Wrench Physics Question xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-31 07:16 -0700
                    Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:27 -0600
                      Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-01 23:16 +0000
                        Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:58 -0600
                          Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-02 20:00 +0000
                            Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 14:27 -0600
                Re: Wrench Physics Question jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 21:33 +0000
                  Re: Wrench Physics Question Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 21:19 -0500
                    Re: Wrench Physics Question jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-31 02:58 +0000
    Re: Wrench Physics Question "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 12:41 -0700
      Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 19:56 +0000
        Re: Wrench Physics Question jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 20:21 +0000
          Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 20:39 +0000
            Re: Wrench Physics Question jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 21:13 +0000
        Re: Wrench Physics Question Tom P <werotizy@freent.dd> - 2015-10-31 22:40 +0100
      Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 20:25 +0000
        Re: Wrench Physics Question jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 20:40 +0000
          Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 21:04 +0000
            Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 16:23 -0500
              Re: Wrench Physics Question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 14:27 -0700
                Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 22:28 +0000
                  Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 21:10 -0500
                    Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-31 02:25 +0000
                      Re: Wrench Physics Question xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-30 20:45 -0700
                      Re: Wrench Physics Question dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-01 07:53 -0500
                        Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-02 01:09 +0000
                          Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:19 -0600
                            Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-02 19:43 +0000
                              Re: Wrench Physics Question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 14:16 -0600
              Re: Wrench Physics Question Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:56 -0700
            Re: Wrench Physics Question jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-30 21:38 +0000
        Re: Wrench Physics Question "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 22:27 -0800
    Re: Wrench Physics Question xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-30 17:55 -0700
      Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-31 01:33 +0000
        Re: Wrench Physics Question xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-30 20:34 -0700
      Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-31 02:05 +0000
        Re: Wrench Physics Question xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-30 20:37 -0700
    Re: Wrench Physics Question xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-30 18:00 -0700
    Re: Wrench Physics Question xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-30 18:03 -0700
      Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-31 01:24 +0000
    Re: Wrench Physics Question Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 18:44 -0500
      Re: Wrench Physics Question Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 19:35 -0500
      Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-01 01:33 +0000
        Re: Wrench Physics Question benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 23:21 -0400
          Re: Wrench Physics Question "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 04:35 -0800
      Re: Wrench Physics Question Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-01 23:01 +0000

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#529095 — Wrench Physics Question

C'mon, physics junkies.  It's time to discuss -- if you
can.

Here is an image of a common open-end wrench:

http://s8.postimg.org/em76bn2k5/wrench.png

Note how the head, or gripper, of the wrench is set at an angle
to the handle axis.

Thus, there are two different possible directions of rotation
that can be used with either end to tighten (or loosen) a fastening
nut or bolt.

Why is the wrench designed in this way?

Is one rotation direction preferable to the other?  If so, why?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#529111

On 10/30/2015 1:47 AM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> C'mon, physics junkies.  It's time to discuss -- if you
> can.
>
> Here is an image of a common open-end wrench:
>
> http://s8.postimg.org/em76bn2k5/wrench.png
>
> Note how the head, or gripper, of the wrench is set at an angle
> to the handle axis.
>
> Thus, there are two different possible directions of rotation
> that can be used with either end to tighten (or loosen) a fastening
> nut or bolt.
>
> Why is the wrench designed in this way?
>
> Is one rotation direction preferable to the other?  If so, why?
>

I always thought it was to increase range of motion. Nuts are often in 
confined spaces and the angle of attack for attaching the wrench may be 
limited. If the nut is at a particular orientation, and you need to 
rotate it in some particular direction, you can flip the wrench to 
accommodate. You would have no such option if the wrench head weren't 
canted; flipping the wrench would do nothing for you.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#529128

On 10/30/15 8:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> I always thought it was to increase range of motion. Nuts are often in
> confined spaces and the angle of attack for attaching the wrench may be
> limited. If the nut is at a particular orientation, and you need to
> rotate it in some particular direction, you can flip the wrench to
> accommodate. You would have no such option if the wrench head weren't
> canted; flipping the wrench would do nothing for you.
>

   Yes--with tight access on orientation only will work. That's why there
   is a choice.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#529162

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/30/15 8:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> I always thought it was to increase range of motion. Nuts are often in
>> confined spaces and the angle of attack for attaching the wrench may be
>> limited. If the nut is at a particular orientation, and you need to
>> rotate it in some particular direction, you can flip the wrench to
>> accommodate. You would have no such option if the wrench head weren't
>> canted; flipping the wrench would do nothing for you.
>>
> 
>   Yes--with tight access on orientation only will work. That's why there
>   is a choice.
 
Gibberish; no wonder you never discuss anything, shit head.

Also take note that this post got actual discussion and was the words
of the poster and not a cut and paste.

Learn by example, shit head. 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#529328

On 10/30/2015 12:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/30/15 8:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> I always thought it was to increase range of motion. Nuts are often in
>>> confined spaces and the angle of attack for attaching the wrench may be
>>> limited. If the nut is at a particular orientation, and you need to
>>> rotate it in some particular direction, you can flip the wrench to
>>> accommodate. You would have no such option if the wrench head weren't
>>> canted; flipping the wrench would do nothing for you.
>>>

>>    Yes--with tight access on orientation only will work. That's why there
>>    is a choice.
>
> Gibberish; no wonder you never discuss anything, shit head.
>
> Also take note that this post got actual discussion and was the words
> of the poster and not a cut and paste.
>
> Learn by example, shit head.
>
>

Gibberish; no wonder you never discuss anything, shit head.

Also take note that this post got actual discussion and was the words
of the poster and not a cut and paste.

Learn by example, shit head.

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

#529354

On 10/30/15 12:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>
> Gibberish; no wonder you never discuss anything, shit head.
>

   The jimp is right, I should be more articulate -- If there is enough
   room to rotate a hex bolt or nut 30°, then an offset of 15° in the
   open end wrench will allow (flipping the wrench over) an additional
   30° of rotation totaling 60°.

   An excellent design using a 15° offset in open end wrenches, for hex
   bolts and nuts. Simple mathematics really.

   May the use of good wrenches be with you all.







-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#529161

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/30/2015 1:47 AM, Fabian Russell wrote:
>> C'mon, physics junkies.  It's time to discuss -- if you
>> can.
>>
>> Here is an image of a common open-end wrench:
>>
>> http://s8.postimg.org/em76bn2k5/wrench.png
>>
>> Note how the head, or gripper, of the wrench is set at an angle
>> to the handle axis.
>>
>> Thus, there are two different possible directions of rotation
>> that can be used with either end to tighten (or loosen) a fastening
>> nut or bolt.
>>
>> Why is the wrench designed in this way?
>>
>> Is one rotation direction preferable to the other?  If so, why?
>>
> 
> I always thought it was to increase range of motion. Nuts are often in 
> confined spaces and the angle of attack for attaching the wrench may be 
> limited. If the nut is at a particular orientation, and you need to 
> rotate it in some particular direction, you can flip the wrench to 
> accommodate. You would have no such option if the wrench head weren't 
> canted; flipping the wrench would do nothing for you.
 
Exactly.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#529166

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:09:11 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> 
> I always thought it was to increase range of motion. Nuts are often in 
> confined spaces and the angle of attack for attaching the wrench may be 
> limited.
>

Yes, that certainly is true.

But, under unconfined conditions, there could be a preferred direction
of rotation.

Take a paper and pencil to sketch a force diagram to verify
the following:

If there were no head angle (0 degrees), all the force applied to the
handle would produce torque about the center of the bolt or nut.

With a certain head angle, some of the applied force does not produce
torque but rather produces an acceleration of the bolt or nut.  Of course
the bolt or nut is fixed and cannot move, but if the wrench should slip
off then the resulting motion of the wrench could cause problems,
especially if a lot of force is applied to the handle (stubborn bolt).

So, in light of this, which direction of rotation would be preferable?

Note that my original posting contained TWO questions: the reason for
the design and any rotation preference.  The two issues need not be related.

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

#529171

On 10/30/2015 12:23 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:09:11 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>
>> I always thought it was to increase range of motion. Nuts are often in
>> confined spaces and the angle of attack for attaching the wrench may be
>> limited.
>>
>
> Yes, that certainly is true.
>
> But, under unconfined conditions, there could be a preferred direction
> of rotation.

Yes, indeed. If I'm trying to tighten it, then I want to turn it 
clockwise. If I want to loosen it, then I want to turn it a different way.

Wrench heads are angled at 15 degrees for a specific reason, which you 
can relate to the fact that most bolt heads and nuts have six sides.

I think you are imagining a solution looking for a problem. I'm pretty 
sure the reason I gave for the design is right and anything else is an 
unintended consequence. I'll bet this is not hard to find with a quick 
Google search.

>
> Take a paper and pencil to sketch a force diagram to verify
> the following:
>
> If there were no head angle (0 degrees), all the force applied to the
> handle would produce torque about the center of the bolt or nut.
>
> With a certain head angle, some of the applied force does not produce
> torque but rather produces an acceleration of the bolt or nut.  Of course
> the bolt or nut is fixed and cannot move, but if the wrench should slip
> off then the resulting motion of the wrench could cause problems,
> especially if a lot of force is applied to the handle (stubborn bolt).
>
> So, in light of this, which direction of rotation would be preferable?
>
> Note that my original posting contained TWO questions: the reason for
> the design and any rotation preference.  The two issues need not be related.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#529175

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:44:25 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> 
> Yes, indeed. If I'm trying to tighten it, then I want to turn it 
> clockwise. If I want to loosen it, then I want to turn it a different way.
> 

Only for a right-handed thread pattern.

But methinks you misunderstand the question.  As I indicated, the force
direction is different depending on whether the acute head angle faces
you (the puller) or faces away from you.  This situation CAN make a
difference upon slippage and thus can define a preferred direction of
rotation.

Recall the titan missile explosion that occurred because some technician
dropped a wrench in the silo.  Perhaps he lost control when it slipped
off the bolt head.

Again, note that this issue is separate from any design considerations.

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

#529180

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:44:25 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> 
> I'm pretty 
> sure the reason I gave for the design is right
>

No, the reason you gave is certainly, with no doubt, the correct one. 


>
> and anything else is an unintended consequence.
>

Unintended consequences test the mettle of any physicist/scientist,
wouldn't you agree?

Indeed, scientific progress depends on the recognition of unintended
consequences, and the attitude which you express toward this problem
is not at all desirable.  Your attitude is narrow and regressive.

Sorry, but the unintended forces on an open-end wrench my cause effects
that need to be recognized.

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

#529210

On 10/30/2015 1:08 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> Unintended consequences test the mettle of any physicist/scientist,
> wouldn't you agree?
>
> Indeed, scientific progress depends on the recognition of unintended
> consequences, and the attitude which you express toward this problem
> is not at all desirable.  Your attitude is narrow and regressive.
>
> Sorry, but the unintended forces on an open-end wrench my cause effects
> that need to be recognized.

Aha. Well, you go ahead and flog the wrench-slippage horse if you want. 
I think it's been laying there without breathing since last Sunday.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#529217

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:37:40 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> 
> Well, you go ahead and flog the wrench-slippage horse if you want. 
> 

I think it's something else that needs to be flogged.

Bad attitudes, being inherently destructive, must never be
tolerated.

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

#529227

On 10/30/2015 3:42 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:37:40 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, you go ahead and flog the wrench-slippage horse if you want.
>>
>
> I think it's something else that needs to be flogged.
>
> Bad attitudes, being inherently destructive, must never be
> tolerated.
>

You mean, like your attitude about women?
Sure, come over here for a little bitch-slapping treatment.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#529182

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:44:25 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> 
> I think you are imagining a solution looking for a problem.
>

You sound like some dime-a-dozen technician or mechanic that
has been trained only to follow a repair manual and cannot be
bothered with reality.

Your talent, and your intelligence, can be easily replaced with
software and a robot.

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

#529213

On 10/30/2015 1:14 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:44:25 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>
>> I think you are imagining a solution looking for a problem.
>>
>
> You sound like some dime-a-dozen technician or mechanic that
> has been trained only to follow a repair manual and cannot be
> bothered with reality.
>
> Your talent, and your intelligence, can be easily replaced with
> software and a robot.
>

LOL.
I'm sure software and robots can do woodworking. I see it all the time 
in IKEA. But somehow people come to me for quality.

If you are bitching about lack of interest in your insight into the 
physics of bashed knuckles when a crescent wrench is used improperly, 
though, I leave you to your wailing.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#529235

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:40:23 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> 
> I'm sure software and robots can do woodworking. I see it all the time 
> in IKEA. But somehow people come to me for quality.
> 

Until the shop down the street, the one with the new-fangled 3D
fabricator, starts producing rival products of equal or better
intricacy at far less cost and at far greater rates.

I'm sure that a good portion of your clientele will give up that
"natural wood feel" for a better price and accessibility.  (Why
pay an exorbitant fee for one when you fill up your entire mantle for
the same cash?)

But who's to say that extruded wood pulp and binders, if formulated
correctly, cannot compete with the "real" thing?

It's only a matter of some small time before you, like the dinosaurs,
are extinct. 

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

#529240

On 10/30/2015 4:13 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:40:23 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm sure software and robots can do woodworking. I see it all the time
>> in IKEA. But somehow people come to me for quality.
>>
>
> Until the shop down the street, the one with the new-fangled 3D
> fabricator, starts producing rival products of equal or better
> intricacy at far less cost and at far greater rates.

Intricacy is not the issue. Craftsmanship is. A CNC mill will carve a 
shape into whatever material you give it, and it will not care to check 
the direction of the grain, or whether there are knots and burls or cracks.

>
> I'm sure that a good portion of your clientele will give up that
> "natural wood feel" for a better price and accessibility.  (Why
> pay an exorbitant fee for one when you fill up your entire mantle for
> the same cash?)

You get what you pay for.

>
> But who's to say that extruded wood pulp and binders, if formulated
> correctly, cannot compete with the "real" thing?

How long do particle-board cabinets last, do you think?

>
> It's only a matter of some small time before you, like the dinosaurs,
> are extinct.
>

Maybe. I have no aspirations to make my great grandchildren woodworkers.
In the meantime, I have plenty of business, despite your personally 
hurled omens.

Enjoy your cheap, commodity, throwaway items. May your rocking chair 
expire as quickly as your cell phone.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#529259

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:29:07 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> 
> Enjoy your cheap, commodity, throwaway items.
>

I will.  But they are not "throwaway" items.  Because I examine the
fine details that others may miss (witness the substance of this thread)
I will make sure that they will last a long, long time.


>
> Craftsmanship is [the issue]
>

LOL!  I am amused at the thousands of man-years wasted in assuaging
the illusory desires of the well endowed.  To them, only the glitter
matters, and only the sparkle.  Thus, like primitive beasts, they
are beguiled and enticed by diamonds, rubies, and gold, and they 
employ armies of craftsman to ceaselessly toil to feed their hallucinatory
fervor.

Pfft!  I see more value in a camel's ass than I do in the intricate
facets of the Hope Diamond.

I don't require trinkets, however fabulous, to enthrall my vision
of the universe.

There is providence in the fall of a sparrow.

As Hamlet sayeth:  I could be bound in a nutshell and count myself king
of infinite space.

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

#529262

On 10/30/2015 4:59 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:29:07 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>
>> Enjoy your cheap, commodity, throwaway items.
>>
>
> I will.  But they are not "throwaway" items.  Because I examine the
> fine details that others may miss (witness the substance of this thread)
> I will make sure that they will last a long, long time.
>
>
>>
>> Craftsmanship is [the issue]
>>
>
> LOL!  I am amused at the thousands of man-years wasted in assuaging
> the illusory desires of the well endowed.  To them, only the glitter
> matters, and only the sparkle.  Thus, like primitive beasts, they
> are beguiled and enticed by diamonds, rubies, and gold, and they
> employ armies of craftsman to ceaselessly toil to feed their hallucinatory
> fervor.
>
> Pfft!  I see more value in a camel's ass than I do in the intricate
> facets of the Hope Diamond.
>
> I don't require trinkets, however fabulous, to enthrall my vision
> of the universe.
>
> There is providence in the fall of a sparrow.
>
> As Hamlet sayeth:  I could be bound in a nutshell and count myself king
> of infinite space.
>

You're homeless, aren't you?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web