mark, you defended well a poster whose handle is "steve". Unfortunately, you
assumed "steve" is rational. if you knew "steve" a bit more from his wild
claims of knowledge, you would snicker at him like the seventh grade kids do.

The claim has been made by a poster on this ng who calls himself "steve"
that
diesel engines as used on commercial fishing boats are often torn down for
a
major overhaul after every trip to sea, about 700+ engine time.

Anyone here have experience with diesel engines in commercial fishing
boats?
do those guys really trust their lives to engines that won't go even a
thousand
hours? Anybody know why they do this?

A rebuild is done when necessary (obviously). I have heard that a 2-stroke
Detroit will last around 2500 to 3000 hrs (according to a specific owner).
Now in this case the owner I was talking to eventually traded from a 6-71 to
a large bore Isuzu marine diesel which he swears had over 4000 hrs on the
clock. Disney world would do a rebuild on their launches (3-53 Detroit's)
every year but then in the late 80's switched to Perkins 4-128(?) because
they felt the service time was twice that of the Detroit's (4k-5khrs). Now
in reference to the poster he may have been talking to somebody that only
had one ship (with a single) and they could not afford to brake down and
loose a load. So the cost of a rebuild would be much less then the lost of
a catch. Most commercial companies collect an oil sample at each change and
monitor the material in the oil. Companies like Blackstone can tell you
more that you would ever want to know about your engine. They can specify
oil change intervals, leaking gaskets, bad injectors, warn cylinder sleeves
and so on. So it is reasonable but I suspect its not the norm...

mark

On 14 Jul 2004 02:11:21 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

mark, you defended well a poster whose handle is "steve". Unfortunately, you
assumed "steve" is rational. if you knew "steve" a bit more from his wild
claims of knowledge, you would snicker at him like the seventh grade kids do.

You wanna talk about wild claims of knowledge laughed at by seventh
grade kids, here are some of jox's claims:

By definition, the Earth's surface is planar.

An ICBM has no navigation system.

There's no outside reference when using DR to navigate.

It costs $15,000/year to make 10gals of water/day with a shipboard
watermaker.

You must use an isp to read a usenet newsgroup.

The human head can take about a 7 G blow before death becomes certain.

A rhumb line is a straight line on any chart, Mercator chart (sic) or
otherwise.

A rhumb is distance between two points one compass point apart.

Alternators are (for all practical purposes) capable of only producing
one voltage, no matter the rpm.

If you can see outside reference points, then you KNOW where you are...

There is no such thing as a north seeking gyro.

Yes Jox, you are a riot.

Steve

Steven Shelikoff wrote:
You must use an isp to read a usenet newsgroup.

Well, you have to have *some* sort of Internet connection, at least
intermittently. If you have an Internet connection, you're getting it from
some service provider. That provider may or may not be a commercial ISP,
but they are an ISP of some sort.

Shawn

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:42:53 -0600, Shawn Willden
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:
You must use an isp to read a usenet newsgroup.

Well, you have to have *some* sort of Internet connection, at least
intermittently. If you have an Internet connection, you're getting it from
some service provider. That provider may or may not be a commercial ISP,
but they are an ISP of some sort.

You're making the same mistake he made. No, you don't need an internet
connection of any type to read usenet newsgroups. You can get a
newsfeed without an ISP. The usenet has been around much longer than
the commercial internet as we know it today and for the most part used
UUCP to transfer messages. And you can still use that method without
having any internet access at all.

Of course, when this was all pointed out to Jax and he just huffed and
denied it, as is his usual MO when someone points out a mistake of his,
when the much easier and saner thing to do is to just admit a mistake
and move on. No one's perfect... but Jox thinks he is even though he's
wrong in just about everything he says.

Steve

"steve", ARPANET is long since gone.

Steven Shelikoff wrote:
You must use an isp to read a usenet newsgroup.

Well, you have to have *some* sort of Internet connection, at least
intermittently. If you have an Internet connection, you're getting it from
some service provider. That provider may or may not be a commercial ISP,
but they are an ISP of some sort.

You're making the same mistake he made. No, you don't need an internet
connection of any type to read usenet newsgroups. You can get a
newsfeed without an ISP. The usenet has been around much longer than
the commercial internet as we know it today and for the most part used
UUCP to transfer messages. And you can still use that method without
having any internet access at all.

Of course, when this was all pointed out to Jax and he just huffed and
denied it, as is his usual MO when someone points out a mistake of his,
when the much easier and saner thing to do is to just admit a mistake
and move on. No one's perfect... but Jox thinks he is even though he's
wrong in just about everything he says.

Steve

JAXAshby wrote:

"steve", ARPANET is long since gone.

That's arguably true, but irrelevant. ARPANET and UUCPNET were completely
different networks. ARPANET came long before UUCPNET but was significantly
more advanced. ARPANET was an inter-network from the very beginning, using
packet switching and automated routing, whereas UUCPNET was a
point-to-point network with multi-hop routing being done manually (with
bang paths). The underlying communications were different as well:
UUCPNET was primarily a loose collection of computers tied together with
dialup whereas ARPANET was on leased lines, from the very beginning.
Protocols were also different: ARPANET originally used NCP and then
switched to TCP/IP in the early 80s. UUCPNET used the UUCP protocol (it's
actually more accurate to say that the collection of computers using UUCP
was called UUCPNET). Eventually, UUCPNET merged into
ARPANET/NSFNet/Internet by transporting UUCP data streams in TCP, but that
was a fairly quick-n-dirty way to combine the networks, and UUCP was pretty
much phased out. It's still occasionally used for transferring files, by
people who don't care about security or performance.

Basically, UUCPNET was a poor solution (though one remembered with
fondness), and was quickly replaced by the TCP/IP-based ARPANET, which
eventually grew into what we now call the Internet. The morphing of
ARPANET into Internet was less a technological change and more of an
administration and funding change, so people can and do disagree about
whether or not ARPANET really is gone, or if it's just been renamed.

Shawn.

dude, I sold services for ARPANET back in the days when only universities and
defense contractor's cared.

JAXAshby wrote:

"steve", ARPANET is long since gone.

That's arguably true, but irrelevant. ARPANET and UUCPNET were completely
different networks. ARPANET came long before UUCPNET but was significantly
more advanced. ARPANET was an inter-network from the very beginning, using
packet switching and automated routing, whereas UUCPNET was a
point-to-point network with multi-hop routing being done manually (with
bang paths). The underlying communications were different as well:
UUCPNET was primarily a loose collection of computers tied together with
dialup whereas ARPANET was on leased lines, from the very beginning.
Protocols were also different: ARPANET originally used NCP and then
switched to TCP/IP in the early 80s. UUCPNET used the UUCP protocol (it's
actually more accurate to say that the collection of computers using UUCP
was called UUCPNET). Eventually, UUCPNET merged into
ARPANET/NSFNet/Internet by transporting UUCP data streams in TCP, but that
was a fairly quick-n-dirty way to combine the networks, and UUCP was pretty
much phased out. It's still occasionally used for transferring files, by
people who don't care about security or performance.

Basically, UUCPNET was a poor solution (though one remembered with
fondness), and was quickly replaced by the TCP/IP-based ARPANET, which
eventually grew into what we now call the Internet. The morphing of
ARPANET into Internet was less a technological change and more of an
administration and funding change, so people can and do disagree about
whether or not ARPANET really is gone, or if it's just been renamed.

Shawn.

On 15 Jul 2004 12:48:10 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

"steve", ARPANET is long since gone.

Another non-sequitor and stupid statement by you. Usenet did not depend
on arpanet either. You could read and post to usenet newgroups without
an arpanet or what it has become (internet) connection, and still can.

Steve


Steven Shelikoff wrote:
You must use an isp to read a usenet newsgroup.

Well, you have to have *some* sort of Internet connection, at least
intermittently. If you have an Internet connection, you're getting it from
some service provider. That provider may or may not be a commercial ISP,
but they are an ISP of some sort.

You're making the same mistake he made. No, you don't need an internet
connection of any type to read usenet newsgroups. You can get a
newsfeed without an ISP. The usenet has been around much longer than
the commercial internet as we know it today and for the most part used
UUCP to transfer messages. And you can still use that method without
having any internet access at all.

Of course, when this was all pointed out to Jax and he just huffed and
denied it, as is his usual MO when someone points out a mistake of his,
when the much easier and saner thing to do is to just admit a mistake
and move on. No one's perfect... but Jox thinks he is even though he's
wrong in just about everything he says.

Steve

"steve", you have been over served. go sleep it off.

"steve", ARPANET is long since gone.

Another non-sequitor and stupid statement by you. Usenet did not depend
on arpanet either. You could read and post to usenet newgroups without
an arpanet or what it has become (internet) connection, and still can.

Steve


Steven Shelikoff wrote:
You must use an isp to read a usenet newsgroup.

Well, you have to have *some* sort of Internet connection, at least
intermittently. If you have an Internet connection, you're getting it
from
some service provider. That provider may or may not be a commercial ISP,
but they are an ISP of some sort.

You're making the same mistake he made. No, you don't need an internet
connection of any type to read usenet newsgroups. You can get a
newsfeed without an ISP. The usenet has been around much longer than
the commercial internet as we know it today and for the most part used
UUCP to transfer messages. And you can still use that method without
having any internet access at all.

Of course, when this was all pointed out to Jax and he just huffed and
denied it, as is his usual MO when someone points out a mistake of his,
when the much easier and saner thing to do is to just admit a mistake
and move on. No one's perfect... but Jox thinks he is even though he's
wrong in just about everything he says.

Steve

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

You can get a
newsfeed without an ISP. The usenet has been around much longer than
the commercial internet as we know it today and for the most part used
UUCP to transfer messages. And you can still use that method without
having any internet access at all.

Oh, I used UUCP for mail and USENET 15+ years ago, but I thought it was
deader'n a doornail by the late 90s. It's certainly technically possible
to move a newsfeed via UUCP, but I have to wonder if you could actually
find anyone who would do it!

Shawn.