Interesting visitor....
 

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:56:55 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:15:45 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H


Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?

--
John H

RFC
You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.

Should we stop building ships?
--
John H

Intel assets don't prevent war? That's a really interesting statement,
considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.
Read my post. The intel assets we, and many other countries, had did not
prevent us from attacking Iraq. They gave us the heads up on the WMD being
developed by Saddam.

To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.
It's hard not to make personal insults, isn't it?

Do you believe we should not build new ships? You've never answered that
question. If it is the cost that bothers you, how much do you think we
should spend for a new ship?
--
John H


I'm sorry, John, but I really don't see any purpose in playing word
games with you. If you can't figure it out, it is your problem, not
mine, because, to be blunt (and not offensive), I don't give a **** what
you think...

About anything.

Merry Christmas.

Harry, I find you like most liberals.


Really, John...why would you think I give a damn how you "find" me?

Did you see this: "I don't give a damn what you think..."

That's not hard to understand.

Interesting visitor....
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:12:52 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:56:55 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:15:45 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H


Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?

--
John H

RFC
You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.

Should we stop building ships?
--
John H

Intel assets don't prevent war? That's a really interesting statement,
considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.
Read my post. The intel assets we, and many other countries, had did not
prevent us from attacking Iraq. They gave us the heads up on the WMD being
developed by Saddam.

To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.
It's hard not to make personal insults, isn't it?

Do you believe we should not build new ships? You've never answered that
question. If it is the cost that bothers you, how much do you think we
should spend for a new ship?
--
John H


I'm sorry, John, but I really don't see any purpose in playing word
games with you. If you can't figure it out, it is your problem, not
mine, because, to be blunt (and not offensive), I don't give a **** what
you think...

About anything.

Merry Christmas.

Harry, I find you like most liberals.


Really, John...why would you think I give a damn how you "find" me?

Did you see this: "I don't give a damn what you think..."

That's not hard to understand.

You snipped this, "When someone questions you with specifics, you quickly
demur, change the subject, or begin with the personal insults."

It does seem somewhat true though, no?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Interesting visitor....
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...

If we had better intel, Bush and Cheney wouldn't have had the wiggle room
to invade.


Harry, from your perspective, exactly why *did* Bush and Cheney invade
Iraq?

Eisboch

Interesting visitor....
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:50:32 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Harry, from your perspective, exactly why *did* Bush and Cheney invade
Iraq?

Eisboch

God told him to.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...aq-509925.html

Interesting visitor....
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:15:50 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:

If you heat aluminum in the presence of oxygen in first melts and then
begins to do something which closely resembles burning at very high
temperatures. After glowing red very brightly, it turns into a
powdery ash within seconds.

I'd call it burning, purists may not.


It might be burning, but will it support combustion like wood or
magnesium?

In the presence of the right oxidizers it absolutely will.

The thermite reaction for example which will burn through almost
anything:

2Al(solid) + Fe2O3(solid) ---- 2 Fe + Al2O3

or as rocket fuel:

6 NH4ClO4 (oxidant) + 10 Al = 5 Al2O3 + 6 HCl + 3N2 + 9 H2O

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...on/q0246.shtml

More he

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=ge...er =ADA425147





Sort of like Magnesium in the presence of aluminum. Funny story about
Thermite. Company I worked for in the 1980's designed and build part of an
An/uyk 6 battle computer. One of the FE's was aboard a ship and asked what
this thing on top of the computer was. Operator says is a destruct device.
and accidently trigger the thermite bomb, which proceeded to burn through
the computer (Thick Aluminum case) and then the deck below the computer.
Luckily was not our FE who triggered the disaster. Do not know what
actually happended to the squid who did.

Interesting visitor....
 

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:27:14 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

I think the Sheffield was mostly steel and the aluminum in question was a
high magnesium content alloy.

Probably no more than 5%. The stuff, and copper as well, harden
aluminum as carbon hardens iron.

Casady

Won't be any copper to speak of in aluminum exposed to sal****er.

Interesting visitor....
 

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:59:08 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Magnesium melts. One of the
reasons it is so hard to weld magnesium.

You are saying that melting makes things hard to weld?
I say it is quite usual to melt the metal while welding, although
there is pressure welding, below the melting point, sometimes even at
room temperature. And it isn't hard to weld magnesium. You simply
surround the arc with a blanket of inert gas, helium or argon.
Nitrogen and carbon dioxide are not inert enough, magnesium will burn
in either.
I have a welded magnesium extension ladder, and I once ignited a small
sliver of it. It burns with a brilliant white light.

Casady

I meant burn as opposed to melts. Yup, we used to get in trouble in Chem
class in high school by burning the Magnesium strips. As I emant, much
harder to weld Magnesium due to the high burnibility.

Interesting visitor....
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:07:32 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design.
Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?

Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Good grief.

Use steel in the places you need strength.
Use aluminum in the places you need light weight.
Use titanium when you need both.

I'm not an expert on steel or aluminum, but a few years ago I had to
do some research on this very subject.

As I understand it, and again this is remembering what I learned at
the time, the major difference between steel and aluminum is that
aluminum will reach it's failure point, given the same strength
standard, 40% sooner than steel.

Again, that's how I remember the issue.

I could be entirely wrong.

There is no cycling rating for aluminum It will eventually crack if flexed.
Where as steel has a rating (B10?) where if the metal is not flexed beyond a
certain point will last forever.

Interesting visitor....
 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 20:56:51 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:27:14 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

I think the Sheffield was mostly steel and the aluminum in question was a
high magnesium content alloy.

Probably no more than 5%. The stuff, and copper as well, harden
aluminum as carbon hardens iron.

Casady

Won't be any copper to speak of in aluminum exposed to sal****er.

They make some outboard motors from beer can scrap. Nearly pure
aluminum, for corrosion resistance.

Casady

Interesting visitor....
 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:07:32 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Use steel in the places you need strength.

You mean that's why airplanes use so very little of it?
Funny, I thought planes needed to be sturdy.

Casady