Dying for a Chevy Volt, but....

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

> I like the "The sun never sets on the British Empire" one much better.

It still doesn't ... and given that most of the bits that are left are too
small to make a go of it on their own (Pitcairn, Tristan da Cunha,
Montserrat) and/or have no interest in being taken over by neighbours
(Gibraltar, Falklands) and/or have no population (South Georgia, Ascension),
it could be a while ...

On Mar 1, 4:39*am, Ed Huntress > wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:25:39 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 28, 11:25*am, Ed Huntress > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:20:00 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On Feb 28, 10:17*am, Ed Huntress > wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:58:32 -0500, "Existential Angst"
>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
> >> >> .. .
> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:54:11 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> >> >> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:33:24 -0800 (PST), harry
> >> >> >>>> > wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>>>On Feb 26, 10:12 pm, "Existential Angst" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>despite
> >> >> >>>>>> the fact that there is 1/100 the mechanical complexity in an electric
> >> >> >>>>>> than
> >> >> >>>>>> in an ICE.
>
> >> >> >>>>>EVs are FAR more complex than an ICE car.
> >> >> >>>>>Hybrids even more so, you have two complete power systems inone car.
>
> >> >> >>>> Yes but EA isn't interested in an actual EV. He thinks there could be
> >> >> >>>> a cheap, full electric, long range, no computer, no airbags,
> >> >> >>>> lightweight, roadworthy car that can also reduce his utility rate and
> >> >> >>>> be so simple that even a proven mental midget could build it.
>
> >> >> >>>First, most of what you just said is lying bull****.
> >> >> >>>I already said the Volt design IS the right design.
>
> >> >> >> NO! You said it's too heavy, has unnecessary computers and airbags,
> >> >> >> takes too long to charge, doesn't get good enough mileage for you, the
> >> >> >> electricity to power it costs you too much, it can't carry lathes or
> >> >> >> cement pallets, lacks hub motors.... **** what's the point of going
> >> >> >> on? It probably comes in the wrong colors.
>
> >> >> >Black is the only dignified color for a car.
> >> >> >All other colors are for housewives and Homeyz....
>
> >> >> As Big Daddy Roth used to say, "if you have a really good body, paint
> >> >> it black. Otherwise, paint it something else." Or George Barris: "If
> >> >> in doubt, paint it black"
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Ed Huntress
>
> >> >> >And of course you are a lying sack of ****.
>
> >> >> >>>It just should not be $45K.
>
> >> >> >> I KNOW! They should sell it at an even bigger loss, so that you can
> >> >> >> write that it's still too much and should be free unless it's
> >> >> >> delivered in 30 minutes.
>
> >> >> >>>And yeah, lightweight would help, 2 airbags would suffice, etc.
>
> >> >> >> Hell yeah! The cars, the car companies, society, the government, the
> >> >> >> healthcare system, the education system, the highway safety
> >> >> >> infrastructure, the energy industry (sorry if I missed any rants
> >> >> >> there) ALL need to be redesigned by a crackpot. Once we rip the
> >> >> >> overweight transaxle out of our '74 Beetles, and replace it with a
> >> >> >> long range battery and an electric motor to create the ultimate 2000
> >> >> >> lb car, we can rule the world! Heil Angst!
>
> >> >> >Yup.
> >> >> >But of course, you missed the much bigger point.
>
> >> >> >>>If the gummint were serious about going green, the Volt subsidy should
> >> >> >>>have
> >> >> >>>the car net out to no more than $20K.
> >> >> >>>It would then FLY off the shelves, and eventually support itself
>
> >> >> >> Aha! And there we have it. You'll buy an EV if somebody pays it down
> >> >> >> to the level of a Cruze. Except... no you won't!
>
> >> >> >And YOU..... * are calling ME...... * a crackpot??
> >> >> >Holy ****.....
>
> >> >> >If the Honder Fit goes kaput, my next car proly won't be a Volt, much as I'd
> >> >> >like, it'll proly be a Pruis c.
> >> >> >Or, if I can sleuth out more about those 136 mpg Insights, I'd finagle one
> >> >> >of those.
>
> >> >> >But, Kidding, no kidding, yer good, you can twist ANYTHING into
> >> >> >non-recognition, and you can do it with some amount of style. *Props to
> >> >> >you....
>
> >> >> >I'd keep an eye on the wife tho, cuz I have an idea your style wears thin
> >> >> >after a while -- esp with all the disingenuous twisting, conniving, and,
> >> >> >well, just plain ole lying. *Keep on eye on your landscaper, as well.
>
> >> >"As Big Daddy Roth used to say, "if you have a really good body, paint
> >> >it black."
>
> >> >From what I can tell from reading Ed Roth knew nothing about working
> >> >sheet metal. All his own stuff was fiberglass.
>
> >> >This guy has produced a DVD by for showing how you work with sheet
> >> >metal and the right way to do it. All you need are hand tools,
> >> >practice and imagination to get the job done right. His DVD cost me
> >> >$50.00 which included shipping from the UK. It's by far the best stuff
> >> >I've ever seen on metal shaping.
>
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGElSHzm0q8
>
> >> Yeah, I saw that and I was impressed. It reminded me of my own attempt
> >> around ten years ago. I turned some mallets on my lathe and sanded a
> >> hollow in a maple stump. Then I proceeded to destroy pieces of 3003
> >> aluminum. They were so bad, I didn't even think the recycler would
> >> take them. <g>
>
> >> Better luck to you. It's good therapy, I hear. (FWIW, I think I was
> >> waiting too long to shrink out the scallops. By the time I got to
> >> them, they wanted to fold over rather than shrink out.)
>
> >> --
> >> Ed Huntress
>
> >I think you would greatly benefit from watching David Gardner's video
> >to better understand the process. I've watched it at least ten times
> >and every time I watch it I get more out of it. My guess is you didn't
> >have enough of an understanding of the process which as far as I can
> >tell has never been documented very well. Documentation of panel
> >beating didn't really start until Ron Fournier's book:
>
> >http://www.fournierenterprises.com/BookPage.html
>
> >David Gardner's video and Ron Covell's videos take it to another
> >level.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8hceHqVw2o
>
> >Watching the videos has made me be able to gain quite a bit more from
> >the books.
>
> >From what you described I'm guessing you didn't have a slapper or as
> >they are called in the UK a flipper or a stake dolly (much better than
> >trying to hold a dolly in your hand) to dress your "panel" out. The
> >puckers shrink into themselves as they are dressed over the stake
> >dolly.
>
> As I say, I only had a few tools that I made to try it out. Mostly I
> was curious about how they shrink aluminum. I know how to stretch it
> just fine. <g>
>
> If I were independently wealthy and wanted a hobby, I could see
> learning how to build restoration aluminum bodies. Either that or
> cold-molded racing sailboats. *But I don't have that kind of time. And
> I already have plenty of hobbies.
>
> If you get into it, I'll be very interested to hear how it goes.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

Shrinking sheet metal isn't that hard. It's where to shrink that's a
little more difficult. Understanding the difference between shape and
form is for me the most challenging.

Perhaps watching this video will help you to see what I was taught by
Fay Butler when I took his 3 day class in 1993. The class was on how
to use a Power Hammer at his shop outside of Ware, Mass. I never got
serious about metal shaping until recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJzPqQhFr2I

You don't have to be rich and you don't need a lot of expensive tools.
What is needed is a lot of time, a lot of patience and a dedication to
do it right. As you get better at hand forming sheet metal and wish to
go faster more tools are required. If your skills are good enough you
can build your own power hammer or English wheel.

On 2/28/2013 10:03 PM, Gunner wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:08:20 -0500, Ed Huntress
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:37:46 -0800, Gunner >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:35:35 -0500, Ed Huntress
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:57:03 -0800, Gunner >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:59:42 -0500, Ed Huntress
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So this is a Hollywood special effects piece?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrZJsvDy19I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N98mXwTsx5A
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that none of them are being built today should give you your
>>>>>> answer. They just can't cut it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steam is just not an answer, Gunner, no matter how much you may like
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Say...isnt the internal combustion engine somewhere around 28%
>>>>>>> effecient?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not the latest ones. We're headed for 40% as a typical number within a
>>>>>> few years. Some cars surpass it now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.instructables.com/answers...rn-for-modern/
>>>>
>>>> Read the first comment by SteamRoss.53. He has it right, except for
>>>> the uniflow steam engines running on superheated steam. The whole
>>>> point of uniflows is to avoid the need for superheated steam. You can
>>>> do it, but it has nothing to do with the uniflow's operation or
>>>> performance.
>>>>
>>>> Other than that minor nitpick, the guy knows what he's talking about.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cyclonepower.com/
>>>>
>>>> <shrug> A hyped-up flash-boiler feeding a radial engine. They've been
>>>> around for over 100 years.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Intersting.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the feature pushed for the "Cyclone" is fuel flexibility.
>>>> That's what drove the Stirling developments in the 1970s, including
>>>> Ford's fleet of Stirling-powered postal trucks.
>>>>
>>>> What happened is that we since learned how to burn just about any
>>>> liquid or gaseous fuel in IC engines, and they have many advantages.
>>>
>>> Bunker fuel will burn in a pickup truck?
>>
>> If we're reduced to bunker oil, it will mean that your pickup truck is
>> too hot with radiation to drive, and you'll either be deep underground
>> or dead.
>>
>> Do you have bunker oil stations in Taft?
>
> We have bunker oil wells in Taft.

Ha ha ha ha ha! You stupid ignorant ****witted pseudologue. Bunker oil
is a *residue* from the petroleum fractional distillation process. No
well in the world pumps out bunker oil.

On 3/1/2013 12:47 AM, harry wrote:
> On Feb 28, 6:24 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 2/28/2013 10:07 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:01:21 -0800, George Plimpton >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 2/27/2013 11:26 PM, harry wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 27, 7:19 pm, wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:45:09 -0800, George Plimpton >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On 2/26/2013 10:56 PM, harry wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 6:19 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2013 9:58 AM, harry wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 5:23 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> harry wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 12:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell" >
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila Iskander wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that comment again demonstrates how provincial harry's mindset is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously what works around him has to work just as well ALL OVER the world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a holdover from the times when Euros imagined they controlled and were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superior to the rest of the world
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their egos have always outreached their grasp.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True more of the USA than Europe.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The US has never started a world war, but you have two under your
>>>>>>>>>>> belts. Does: "The sun will never set on the British Empire!" ring any
>>>>>>>>>>> bells in your tiny belfry? How about your slave trade, where you limeys
>>>>>>>>>>> brought slaves to your southern plantations, then left us to deal with
>>>>>>>>>>> the problems when we kicked your syphilis infected carcasses out in that
>>>>>>>>>>> little spat where a handful of farm boys kicked the **** out of "The
>>>>>>>>>>> best army in the world"?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't know your history.
>>
>>>>>>>>> We do. Brit historical revisionism is funny.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> We were having a problem with the French.
>>>>>>>>>> When we sorted them out we came back and burned down the white house
>>>>>>>>>> and chase you across America.
>>
>>>>>>>>> The War of 1812, a minor conflict of the Napoleonic wars, was not a
>>>>>>>>> victory for either side.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> The US started a war with Japan. You cut off their oil resources.
>>
>>>>>>>>> The US did not start a war with Japan. There's that silly Brit
>>>>>>>>> revisionism again.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> The US armed forces have never won a war since WW2.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong. The US prevailed militarily in Iraq twice, and in several minor
>>>>>>>>> conflicts. The Brits would have lost in the Falklands if not for the US.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Various forms of gooks beat them all round the world regardless of all
>>>>>>>>>> the technology.
>>
>>>>>>>>> The sun did set on the Brit empire, in no small part due to US.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> And we have started many "world" wars, all against tyrants.
>>
>>>>>>>>> No Brit war ever was started to fight tyranny.
>>
>>>>>>>> I can see you're another uneducated Yank.
>>
>>>>>>> You're wrong again.
>>
>>>>>>>> You have not won in Iraq (or Afghanistan.)
>>
>>>>>>> We won in Iraq. Twice. Not in rational dispute. Afghanistan looks
>>>>>>> bad, but it's not a military defeat; it's a political defeat. The US
>>>>>>> has never been militarily defeated. We've gotten into some stupid wars
>>>>>>> and lost politically, but never militarily. Not so the Brits.
>>
>>>>>>>> They have defeated you.
>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>
>>>>>>>> The USA did not exist while we fought European tyrants.
>>
>>>>>>> You've never fought European tyrants to fight tyranny.
>>
>>>>>>> You lost your empire - pure and simple. You didn't want to lose it, but
>>>>>>> you did.
>>
>>>>>> The limp-wristed Brits won't even keep the Falklands for much longer.
>>
>>>>> Don't see you in Panama or the Philipines.
>>
>>>> Correct, because unlike racist Brits, the US believes in
>>>> self-determination. Basically, you lost the remnants of your colonial
>>>> empire after the second world war because we made you give them up. The
>>>> nail was all but driven into the coffin when we forced your pasty doughy
>>>> asses out of Suez in 1956. Wikipedia gives one of the results of that
>>>> Brit debacle as "End of Britain's role as a Superpower."
>>
>>>> If you weren't such wretched ingrates, you'd understand that it was an
>>>> act of American benevolence toward the UK.
>>
>>> Especially after the ingrates burned down our White House. I still
>>> haven't forgiven them for that. <g>
>>
>> Burning the White House has always struck me as a gratuitous insult that
>> was militarily useless.
>
> It was done because US armed forces burned down the equivalent
> Canadian place.
>
> It also demoralised the enemy. Let them know they were beat.

The War of 1812 was a US victory, albeit not a crushing defeat for the
Brits.


> US forces are till at it, what happened to Saddam's palaces.?

They weren't burned down. The US used some of them as military HQs.

"George Plimpton" wrote in message
.. .

> The War of 1812 was a US victory, albeit not a crushing defeat for the
> Brits.

The only clear loser in the War of 1812 was the native population.

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:52:43 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
> wrote:

>On Mar 1, 4:39*am, Ed Huntress > wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:25:39 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Feb 28, 11:25*am, Ed Huntress > wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:20:00 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 28, 10:17*am, Ed Huntress > wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:58:32 -0500, "Existential Angst"
>>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
>> >> >> .. .
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:54:11 -0500, "Existential Angst"
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:33:24 -0800 (PST), harry
>> >> >> >>>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>On Feb 26, 10:12 pm, "Existential Angst" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>despite
>> >> >> >>>>>> the fact that there is 1/100 the mechanical complexity in an electric
>> >> >> >>>>>> than
>> >> >> >>>>>> in an ICE.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>EVs are FAR more complex than an ICE car.
>> >> >> >>>>>Hybrids even more so, you have two complete power systems inone car.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> Yes but EA isn't interested in an actual EV. He thinks there could be
>> >> >> >>>> a cheap, full electric, long range, no computer, no airbags,
>> >> >> >>>> lightweight, roadworthy car that can also reduce his utility rate and
>> >> >> >>>> be so simple that even a proven mental midget could build it.
>>
>> >> >> >>>First, most of what you just said is lying bull****.
>> >> >> >>>I already said the Volt design IS the right design.
>>
>> >> >> >> NO! You said it's too heavy, has unnecessary computers and airbags,
>> >> >> >> takes too long to charge, doesn't get good enough mileage for you, the
>> >> >> >> electricity to power it costs you too much, it can't carry lathes or
>> >> >> >> cement pallets, lacks hub motors.... **** what's the point of going
>> >> >> >> on? It probably comes in the wrong colors.
>>
>> >> >> >Black is the only dignified color for a car.
>> >> >> >All other colors are for housewives and Homeyz....
>>
>> >> >> As Big Daddy Roth used to say, "if you have a really good body, paint
>> >> >> it black. Otherwise, paint it something else." Or George Barris: "If
>> >> >> in doubt, paint it black"
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Ed Huntress
>>
>> >> >> >And of course you are a lying sack of ****.
>>
>> >> >> >>>It just should not be $45K.
>>
>> >> >> >> I KNOW! They should sell it at an even bigger loss, so that you can
>> >> >> >> write that it's still too much and should be free unless it's
>> >> >> >> delivered in 30 minutes.
>>
>> >> >> >>>And yeah, lightweight would help, 2 airbags would suffice, etc.
>>
>> >> >> >> Hell yeah! The cars, the car companies, society, the government, the
>> >> >> >> healthcare system, the education system, the highway safety
>> >> >> >> infrastructure, the energy industry (sorry if I missed any rants
>> >> >> >> there) ALL need to be redesigned by a crackpot. Once we rip the
>> >> >> >> overweight transaxle out of our '74 Beetles, and replace it with a
>> >> >> >> long range battery and an electric motor to create the ultimate 2000
>> >> >> >> lb car, we can rule the world! Heil Angst!
>>
>> >> >> >Yup.
>> >> >> >But of course, you missed the much bigger point.
>>
>> >> >> >>>If the gummint were serious about going green, the Volt subsidy should
>> >> >> >>>have
>> >> >> >>>the car net out to no more than $20K.
>> >> >> >>>It would then FLY off the shelves, and eventually support itself
>>
>> >> >> >> Aha! And there we have it. You'll buy an EV if somebody pays it down
>> >> >> >> to the level of a Cruze. Except... no you won't!
>>
>> >> >> >And YOU..... * are calling ME...... * a crackpot??
>> >> >> >Holy ****.....
>>
>> >> >> >If the Honder Fit goes kaput, my next car proly won't be a Volt, much as I'd
>> >> >> >like, it'll proly be a Pruis c.
>> >> >> >Or, if I can sleuth out more about those 136 mpg Insights, I'd finagle one
>> >> >> >of those.
>>
>> >> >> >But, Kidding, no kidding, yer good, you can twist ANYTHING into
>> >> >> >non-recognition, and you can do it with some amount of style. *Props to
>> >> >> >you....
>>
>> >> >> >I'd keep an eye on the wife tho, cuz I have an idea your style wears thin
>> >> >> >after a while -- esp with all the disingenuous twisting, conniving, and,
>> >> >> >well, just plain ole lying. *Keep on eye on your landscaper, as well.
>>
>> >> >"As Big Daddy Roth used to say, "if you have a really good body, paint
>> >> >it black."
>>
>> >> >From what I can tell from reading Ed Roth knew nothing about working
>> >> >sheet metal. All his own stuff was fiberglass.
>>
>> >> >This guy has produced a DVD by for showing how you work with sheet
>> >> >metal and the right way to do it. All you need are hand tools,
>> >> >practice and imagination to get the job done right. His DVD cost me
>> >> >$50.00 which included shipping from the UK. It's by far the best stuff
>> >> >I've ever seen on metal shaping.
>>
>> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGElSHzm0q8
>>
>> >> Yeah, I saw that and I was impressed. It reminded me of my own attempt
>> >> around ten years ago. I turned some mallets on my lathe and sanded a
>> >> hollow in a maple stump. Then I proceeded to destroy pieces of 3003
>> >> aluminum. They were so bad, I didn't even think the recycler would
>> >> take them. <g>
>>
>> >> Better luck to you. It's good therapy, I hear. (FWIW, I think I was
>> >> waiting too long to shrink out the scallops. By the time I got to
>> >> them, they wanted to fold over rather than shrink out.)
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Ed Huntress
>>
>> >I think you would greatly benefit from watching David Gardner's video
>> >to better understand the process. I've watched it at least ten times
>> >and every time I watch it I get more out of it. My guess is you didn't
>> >have enough of an understanding of the process which as far as I can
>> >tell has never been documented very well. Documentation of panel
>> >beating didn't really start until Ron Fournier's book:
>>
>> >http://www.fournierenterprises.com/BookPage.html
>>
>> >David Gardner's video and Ron Covell's videos take it to another
>> >level.
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8hceHqVw2o
>>
>> >Watching the videos has made me be able to gain quite a bit more from
>> >the books.
>>
>> >From what you described I'm guessing you didn't have a slapper or as
>> >they are called in the UK a flipper or a stake dolly (much better than
>> >trying to hold a dolly in your hand) to dress your "panel" out. The
>> >puckers shrink into themselves as they are dressed over the stake
>> >dolly.
>>
>> As I say, I only had a few tools that I made to try it out. Mostly I
>> was curious about how they shrink aluminum. I know how to stretch it
>> just fine. <g>
>>
>> If I were independently wealthy and wanted a hobby, I could see
>> learning how to build restoration aluminum bodies. Either that or
>> cold-molded racing sailboats. *But I don't have that kind of time. And
>> I already have plenty of hobbies.
>>
>> If you get into it, I'll be very interested to hear how it goes.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>Shrinking sheet metal isn't that hard. It's where to shrink that's a
>little more difficult. Understanding the difference between shape and
>form is for me the most challenging.

For you, maybe. For me....well, you should have seen my first race
car, '57 Alfa Romeo Guilietta Spider:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...tta_Spider.JPG

It had been raced and it was kind of pranged. When I got done with the
hammer and dolly, it looked like it had been attacked by a thousand
angry hornets.

>Perhaps watching this video will help you to see what I was taught by
>Fay Butler when I took his 3 day class in 1993. The class was on how
>to use a Power Hammer at his shop outside of Ware, Mass. I never got
>serious about metal shaping until recently.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJzPqQhFr2I

Very cool. I really admire that kind of craftsmanship.

>
>You don't have to be rich and you don't need a lot of expensive tools.
>What is needed is a lot of time, a lot of patience and a dedication to
>do it right. As you get better at hand forming sheet metal and wish to
>go faster more tools are required. If your skills are good enough you
>can build your own power hammer or English wheel.

Yup. All we need is time, eh? I'm on the countdown and I'm marshalling
that a little more carefully.

I have some boats to build before I go into that deep sleep.

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/1/2013 8:21 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> "George Plimpton" wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> The War of 1812 was a US victory, albeit not a crushing defeat for the
>> Brits.
>
> The only clear loser in the War of 1812 was the native population.

The US succeeded in putting a complete stop to British interference in
the US's westward expansion.

On Mar 1, 1:58*pm, Gunner > wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 00:57:43 -0800 (PST), harry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 28, 7:42*pm, Gunner > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:22:19 -0500, wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:13:39 -0800, Gunner >
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >>On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:56:32 -0500, wrote:
>
> >> >>>On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:58:08 -0800, Gunner >
> >> >>>wrote:
>
> >> >>>>On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:18:06 -0500, wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:06:30 -0800, Gunner >
> >> >>>>>wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:27:24 -0500, wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>>On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 01:17:20 -0800 (PST), harry
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>>>On Feb 25, 7:24*pm, Transition Zone > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 12:58*pm, harry > wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> > On Feb 25, 4:56*pm, "Michael A. Terrell" >
> >> >>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> > > The Daring Dufas wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> > > > Electric vehicles are wonderful for the capabilities they have. The
> >> >>>>>>>>> > > > electric car can never take the place of a gasoline powered vehicle
> >> >>>>>>>>> > > > until it has the range and convenience of what we have now. Perhaps
> >> >>>>>>>>> > > > a small nuclear reactor would give an electrically driven vehicle the
> >> >>>>>>>>> > > > ability to travel long distances without having to stop every 50 miles
> >> >>>>>>>>> > > > to recharge the battery. My concept of vehicle range is one that travels
> >> >>>>>>>>> > > > far enough and long enough so that I must stop to empty my bladder
> >> >>>>>>>>> > > > before the vehicle runs out of power. ^_^
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> > > * *There were five mounting locations for 30 gallon tanks on my old
> >> >>>>>>>>> > > stepvan service truck. *Fully loaded, it got over 20 MPG or 600+ miles
> >> >>>>>>>>> > > per tank. Dual tanks easily let you drive over a thousand miles. *All
> >> >>>>>>>>> > > five would take you over 3000 miles, if you could afford to fill all of
> >> >>>>>>>>> > > them. ;-)
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> * >In Europe we let the train take the strain. *Or the bus.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> > *Or fly.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> North of Washington, we do that in the states, too.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>Ah. The area first colonised, hence the most civilised:-)
>
> >> >>>>>>>No, idiot, the area with the densest people, like Europe.
>
> >> >>>>>>Oh..that would be Northern Michigan, rather than the East Coast.
>
> >> >>>>>No, even the back-woods hicks of the UP are no match for their NE
> >> >>>>>cousins. *Evidence, Mayor Doomberg.
>
> >> >>>>The UP was explored and settled long before most of the Eastern states
>
> >> >>>I kinda think NY and MA were settled a bit before, though they're
> >> >>>still pretty unsettling places to live.
>
> >> >>Actually..not true.
>
> >> >Go on... (Is that you, harry?)
>
> >> >>But they are indeed pretty unsettling places to live.
>
> >> >The only places worse are IL and CA.
>
> >> Nah...California is actually pretty nice in most places. Except the
> >> Leftwingers run it. *The Central Valley is a very nice Red Zone.
> >> Hell...most of the state votes Red (conservative) except for 3-4 of
> >> the urban areas
>
> >> Now California..has been explored and settled long before most of the
> >> eastern states. Hell..the Chinese used to come over and trade with the
> >> indians back nearly in the BC times.
>
> >>http://history.howstuffworks.com/his...e-beat-columbu....
>
> >> <VBG>
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Michigan
>
> >> The first white explorer to visit Michigan was the Frenchman Étienne
> >> Brûlé in 1620, who began his expedition from Quebec City on the orders
> >> of Samuel de Champlain and traveled as far as the Upper Peninsula.
> >> Afterward, the area became part of Louisiana, one of the large
> >> colonial provinces of New France. The first permanent European
> >> settlement in Michigan was founded in 1668 at Sault Ste. Marie by
> >> Jacques Marquette, a French missionary."
>
> >> The ability of the early voyagers to use the Great Lakes and the
> >> discovery of copper and of course the massive amounts of harvestable
> >> trees sped up the influx of Europeans dramatically.
>
> >> And then we have the Runestones...some of which may or may not be
> >> hoaxes.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Runestone1362AD
>
> >> 23] Another of the documents reprinted by the 19th century scholars
> >> was a scholarly attempt by Icelandic Bishop Gisli Oddsson, in 1637, to
> >> compile a history of the Arctic colonies. He dated the Greenlanders'
> >> fall away from Christianity to 1342, and claimed that they had turned
> >> instead to America. Supporters of a 14th century origin for the
> >> Kensington runestone argue that Knutson may therefore have travelled
> >> beyond Greenland to North America, in search of renegade Greenlanders,
> >> most of his expedition being killed in Minnesota and leaving just the
> >> eight voyagers to return to Norway.[24]
>
> >> However, there is no evidence that the Knutson expedition ever set
> >> sail (the government of Norway went through considerable turmoil in
> >> 1355) and the information from Cnoyen as relayed by Mercator states
> >> specifically that the eight men who came to Norway in 1364 were not
> >> survivors of a recent expedition, but descended from the colonists who
> >> had settled the distant lands, generations earlier.[22] Also, those
> >> early 19th century books, which aroused a great deal of interest among
> >> Scandinavian Americans would have been available to a late 19th
> >> century hoaxer.
>
> >> Hjalmar Holand had proposed that interbreeding with Norse survivors
> >> might explain the "blond" Indians among the Mandan on the Upper
> >> Missouri River,[25] but in a multidisciplinary study of the stone,
> >> anthropologist Alice Beck Kehoe dismissed, as "tangential" to the
> >> Runestone issue, this and other historical references suggesting
> >> pre-Columbian contacts with 'outsiders', such as the Hochunk
> >> (Winnebago) story about an ancestral hero "Red Horn" and his encounter
> >> with "red-haired giants".[26]
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9rendrye_Runestone
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_Pond_runestones
>
> >> Etc etc
>
> >> <VBG>
>
> >All part of the American attempt to justify *colonisation and ethnic
> >cleansing. Invent some history.
>
> Like the 100 yrs War?
>
The hundred years war actually happened.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:15:16 -0500, wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:41:45 -0600, Doug >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:10:18 -0500, wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:15:13 -0600, Doug >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:57:49 -0500, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:44:49 -0800, Spam?uster >
>>>>>
>>>>>Wow, the little moron knows how to look at a header. Who would have
>>>>>thunk?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Shocking ... LOL
>>>
>>>Your ignorance certainly is Dumbie.
>>
>>
>>I knew you'd reply here. So predictable !!
>
>You replied to me, with an asinine post and then are *shocked* that I
>replied to you? Dumbie, you are as stupid as they come. ...but you
>knew that.

Take your meds today?

On Mar 1, 2:00*pm, Gunner > wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 01:09:08 -0800 (PST), harry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 28, 8:59*pm, Gunner > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:18:24 -0800 (PST), harry
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >O
> >> >> If you weren't such wretched ingrates, you'd understand that it was an
> >> >> act of American benevolence toward the UK.
>
> >> >> > Be out of Hawaii soon I expect.
>
> >> >> Not a chance. *Hawaiians are Americans and like it.
>
> >> >Hawaii was invaded and has been colonised by USAians.
> >> >It was illegally incorporated into the USA.
> >> >The real Hawaiians want it back.
> >> >http://www.freehawaii.org/
>
> >> >In fact they wanted to join the British Empire.
> >> >Here is the proof.
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Hawaii.svg
>
> >> >You're pretty ignorant about your own country.
> >> >Or do you prefer to ignore the realities?
>
> >> Hey Harry...the Picts just called ..they want you and the rest of your
> >> Norman Scum to go home.
>
> >I'm likely a bit Pictish myself as my mother is from Scotland.
>
> >Pretty sure the US indians want you to go home too.
> >Unless you are a Pawnee or something.
>
> Im Ojibwa.

Chingaskook?

> So Harry..painted your belly blue this month?
>