Glass Flows!
Ted Frank
The April 2, 1997 New York Times quotes the MIT Fellow who invented
holographic chocolate as saying that glass flows, and after a hundred
years a window will be thicker at the bottom than on the top.
It was in the New York Times, so it must be true. =D =D
Steven Tyler
Steve Writes:
Judging from your emoticons you must be joking.
Thanks,
Steve
Grant Hughes
In article <5i0b20$3...@saltmine.radix.net>, Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net> wrote:
>The April 2, 1997 New York Times quotes the MIT Fellow who invented
>holographic chocolate as saying that glass flows, and after a hundred
>years a window will be thicker at the bottom than on the top.
>
>It was in the New York Times, so it must be true. =D =D
It is my understanding that normal glass is a super-viscous liquid at
normal ambient temperatures. This is because glass has no regular crystal
lattice structure (something that it chracteristic of the solid state).
As a result, glass obeys the properties of a liquid, and will eventually
conform to the shape of its container. Heating glass merely decreases its
viscosity, and its liquid qualities become more apparent.
I have also read that older glass panes show marked thickening towards the
bottom.
GCH
Rudeboy
Ah, jeez. Here we go again.
Impatiently yours,
Rudeboy
DaveHatunen
In article <5i0mg0$9uo$1...@fremont.ohsu.edu>,
NO! NO! NO!
It hasn't been a year yet, so the myth that glass flows cannot be
discussed here again yet. Please survey DejaNews in alt.folklore.urban on
this subject before posting another thing.
--
*********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) ***********
* In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... *
* Until they find out he can see, then they kill him *
*********************************************************
Judy Johnson
On 3 Apr 1997 16:39:28 GMT, hug...@ohsu.edu (Grant Hughes) wrote:
>It is my understanding that normal glass is a super-viscous liquid at
>normal ambient temperatures. This is because glass has no regular crystal
>lattice structure (something that it chracteristic of the solid state).
>As a result, glass obeys the properties of a liquid, and will eventually
>conform to the shape of its container. Heating glass merely decreases its
>viscosity, and its liquid qualities become more apparent.
Well, your understanding is wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong. Your
punsihment for reviving The Thread That Will Not Die is two fold:
1) First do a search via Deja News for afu threads with "Glass" in the
subject line, read EVERY STINKIN' ONE of 'em. Pay particular
attention to a few lengthly post by Ian "Man of Many Talents" York.
(I'd send you to the archives, but they seem to be a bit under-the
weather, and not up to a visit right now.)
2] Park yourself in front of a convienient window. Remain there for
200 years. Report back if you see the glass flow.
And now, for the ceremonial Incantation To Permanently End This
Misbegotten Thread:
Hitler, Hitler, Bo Bitler
Banana Fana Fo Fitler
Fie Fi Moe Mitler
Hitler!
Foo Foo THIS!
Judy "Run away! Run away!" Johnson
2)
>I have also read that older glass panes show marked thickening towards the
>bottom.
>
>GCH
>
Rob Cooper
In the news article <5i0mg0$9uo$1...@fremont.ohsu.edu> on 03 Apr 1997,
it was said by hug...@ohsu.edu (Grant Hughes) that ...
> It is my understanding that normal glass is a super-viscous liquid at
> normal ambient temperatures. This is because glass has no regular crystal
> lattice structure (something that it chracteristic of the solid state).
> As a result, glass obeys the properties of a liquid, and will eventually
> conform to the shape of its container. Heating glass merely decreases its
> viscosity, and its liquid qualities become more apparent.
>
> I have also read that older glass panes show marked thickening towards the
> bottom.
>
> GCH
>
>
You may well have read it, that doesn't make it any more true though.
TRy checking the FAQ or even the archives at
http://www.urbanlegends.com
you will see as have many others that glass is a SOLID, the whole
liquid story is just that, a story.
--
robi...@ukonline.co.uk
Knowledge is value-free.
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/members/robin.c2/index.htm
- Just updated, includes Jaguar explorer omline issue 1.
David Martin
DaveHatunen wrote:
>
> In article <5i0mg0$9uo$1...@fremont.ohsu.edu>,
> Grant Hughes <hug...@ohsu.edu> wrote:
> >In article <5i0b20$3...@saltmine.radix.net>, Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net> wrote:
> >>The April 2, 1997 New York Times quotes the MIT Fellow who invented
> >>holographic chocolate as saying that glass flows, and after a hundred
> >>years a window will be thicker at the bottom than on the top.
> >>
> >>It was in the New York Times, so it must be true. =D =D
> >
> >normal ambient temperatures. This is because glass has no regular crystal
> >lattice structure (something that it chracteristic of the solid state).
> >As a result, glass obeys the properties of a liquid, and will eventually
> >conform to the shape of its container. Heating glass merely decreases its
> >viscosity, and its liquid qualities become more apparent.
> >
> >I have also read that older glass panes show marked thickening towards the
> >bottom.
>
>
> It hasn't been a year yet, so the myth that glass flows cannot be
> discussed here again yet. Please survey DejaNews in alt.folklore.urban on
> this subject before posting another thing.
I just checked DejaNews, and it appears that we almost made it through
the
entire month of March without a(n undrifted) glass flow post. There was
a
thread about flow, but it had digressed to flow of rivers.
David "and Ted should know better" Martin
Steven Tyler
Grant Hughes wrote:
>
> In article <5i0b20$3...@saltmine.radix.net>, Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net> wrote:
> >The April 2, 1997 New York Times quotes the MIT Fellow who invented
> >holographic chocolate as saying that glass flows, and after a hundred
> >years a window will be thicker at the bottom than on the top.
> >
> >It was in the New York Times, so it must be true. =D =D
>
> It is my understanding that normal glass is a super-viscous liquid at
> normal ambient temperatures. This is because glass has no regular crystal
> lattice structure (something that it chracteristic of the solid state).
> As a result, glass obeys the properties of a liquid, and will eventually
> conform to the shape of its container. Heating glass merely decreases its
> viscosity, and its liquid qualities become more apparent.
>
> I have also read that older glass panes show marked thickening towards the
> bottom.
>
Steve Writes:
Glass is a supercooled liquid with the properties of a solid. In fact
glass displays nearly elastic behavior! If you introduce a stress to an
elastic body not beyond its breaking point, and then remove that stress,
it will resume it's original shape. This is well documented in glass
technology texts and materials science texts (I can cite texts but they
are buried in my closets). Glass has short and medium range crystal
structure that fails to fill the definition of a crystalline material.
In a crystalline material, you can predict the occurence of a molecule or
atom of the material from the position of any other molecule or atom
(that is a really rough definition).
Glass does not flow. The only proof of glass "flowing" is some old
stained glass in church windows. What no articles mention, however, is
that primitive glass making techniques were shoddy. They couldn't make
flat panes of glass with uniform thickness. What the could do, however,
was gauge the thickness of the glass with measuring devices and then
align the pieces of stained glass with their thick ends down to increase
stability and artistic appearance of the window. This gave rise to the
UL that glass flows.
Thanks,
Steve
Madeleine Page
Grant Hughes wrote:
: It is my understanding that normal glass is a super-viscous liquid at
[snipsnap]
: I have also read that older glass panes show marked thickening towards the
: bottom.
Grant Hughes is a *horrible* man.
Madeleine "may he spend eternity with Moe Skeeter and Felicks His Wounds
Derzhinsky" Page
--
For the afu archive, go to www.urbanlegends.com
Grant Hughes
In article <33440c70...@news.cybergate.com>,
Judy Johnson <jjoh...@cybergate.com> wrote:
>On 3 Apr 1997 16:39:28 GMT, hug...@ohsu.edu (Grant Hughes) wrote:
>
>
>Well, your understanding is wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong. Your
>punsihment for reviving The Thread That Will Not Die is two fold:
>
>1) First do a search via Deja News for afu threads with "Glass" in the
>subject line, read EVERY STINKIN' ONE of 'em. Pay particular
>attention to a few lengthly post by Ian "Man of Many Talents" York.
>(I'd send you to the archives, but they seem to be a bit under-the
>weather, and not up to a visit right now.)
>
>2] Park yourself in front of a convienient window. Remain there for
>200 years. Report back if you see the glass flow.
>
>And now, for the ceremonial Incantation To Permanently End This
>Misbegotten Thread:
>
>
In your admirable pursuit of the truth, you have wasted over a dozen lines
of text chastizing my admitedly ignorant post. Perhaps you could have
used that precious space to briefly outline the physical chemistry of
glass.
Thanks.
GCH
Richard L Nimz
On 3 Apr 1997 08:24:16 -0500, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) wrote:
>The April 2, 1997 New York Times quotes the MIT Fellow who invented
>holographic chocolate as saying that glass flows, and after a hundred
>years a window will be thicker at the bottom than on the top.
>
>It was in the New York Times, so it must be true. =D =D
Hmmmmm .... how to phrase it ...?
Ummmmm .... what the hell is holographic chocolate, and how does this
qualify him as a glass expert?
Surely Ted is playing a belated April Fool's joke on us.
Richard "inventor of the solid state pancake and the maintenance-free
cantaloupe" Nimz
jon murray
Grant Hughes wrote:
>
> It is my understanding that normal glass is a super-viscous liquid at
> normal ambient temperatures. This is because glass has no regular crystal
> lattice structure (something that it chracteristic of the solid state).
> As a result, glass obeys the properties of a liquid, and will eventually
> conform to the shape of its container. Heating glass merely decreases its
> viscosity, and its liquid qualities become more apparent.
>
> I have also read that older glass panes show marked thickening towards the
> bottom.
>
Lordy, lordy lordy. Go and play in DejaNews for a while, please!
Alice Faber
>On 3 Apr 1997 08:24:16 -0500, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) wrote:
>>The April 2, 1997 New York Times quotes the MIT Fellow who invented
>>holographic chocolate as saying that glass flows, and after a hundred
>>years a window will be thicker at the bottom than on the top.
>>
>>It was in the New York Times, so it must be true. =D =D
>Hmmmmm .... how to phrase it ...?
>Ummmmm .... what the hell is holographic chocolate, and how does this
>qualify him as a glass expert?
>Surely Ted is playing a belated April Fool's joke on us.
Joke's on you, Richard...Or should I say, Ted's crying wolf, as it were.
Anyway, straight from my recycling pile: NY Times, Wednesday April 2, page
C1: Headline: "Where No Candy
Has Gone Before:
Light as the
Secret Ingredient"
The "mad scientist" is Eric Begleiter, who had the idea for holographic
food 10 years ago, when he was a fellow at MIT. He's now the President of
a start-up company in Cambridge (MASS) called Dimensional Foods, and owner
of another company, Lightvision Confections (http://www.lightvision.com),
that actually makes the candies.
The first product, currently on the market and illustrated in the article,
is a Star Trek lollipop, with holographic images of Klingons, etc.
There are a lot of other cool details in the article, which may still be
around on the Times web site (http://www.nytimes.com; the proof is left as
an exercise for the reader). The glass flowing remark (on the inside
continuation page, page 6 in my edition) is in the context of the
difficulties of actually making the chocolate holographic.
So, I would venture to say that if anyone's trolling here, it's not Ted.
And, if Ted is being victimized here, he's in good company.
Alice "if I'm in the vicinity of too much chocolate, it's not the
chocolate that sags" Faber
Harry MF Teasley
Grant Hughes (hug...@ohsu.edu) wrote:
> In your admirable pursuit of the truth, you have wasted over a dozen lines
> of text chastizing my admitedly ignorant post. Perhaps you could have
> used that precious space to briefly outline the physical chemistry of
> glass.
Shut up, read the faq, get a life, look before you leap, don't point
fingers, don't talk with your mouth full, quit with the snivelling, check
Dejanews like you were told, drop the wounded indignance, don't take Judy
on assuming she can't eat your lunch without half trying.
At least Judy's post was fun to read, Grant.
Harry the Hatchet Man
--
Visit the AFU archives at www.urbanlegends.com
Barbara Mikkelson
Grant Hughes (hug...@ohsu.edu) wrote:
> In your admirable pursuit of the truth, you have wasted over a dozen lines
> of text chastizing my admitedly ignorant post. Perhaps you could have
> used that precious space to briefly outline the physical chemistry of
> glass.
The whine is of particularly poor character this year, don't you find?
Barbara "no bouquet for you, Grant" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | I don't know how anybody has the time to be snopes.
bmik...@best.com | - Cindy Kandolf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
View a random urban legend --> http://www.snopes.com/cgi/randomul.cgi
Madeleine Page
Grant Hughes wrote:
: Judy Johnson <jjoh...@cybergate.com> wrote:
: >On 3 Apr 1997 16:39:28 GMT, hug...@ohsu.edu (Grant Hughes) wrote:
[snip of Judy's funny and informative followup to Grant's having intoned
for our edification that Gl*ss Fl*ws]
: In your admirable pursuit of the truth, you have wasted over a dozen lines
: of text chastizing my admitedly ignorant post. Perhaps you could have
: used that precious space to briefly outline the physical chemistry of
: glass.
Oooh. From ignorant newbie to pompous pratt in one post!
Is this a developmental record?
Madeleine "usually the larval stage lasts for three or four posts" Page
Ian Johnston
Steven Tyler (sct...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Glass is a supercooled liquid with the properties of a solid.
"Supercooled" normally means "thermodynamically unstable". Glass is quite
stable. To be technical, glass is a solid with the properties of a glassy
solid.
In fact
: glass displays nearly elastic behavior! If you introduce a stress to an
: elastic body not beyond its breaking point, and then remove that stress,
: it will resume it's original shape.
Well, that does for the concept of plasticity (which, by the way, has
nothing to do with plastics).
: This is well documented in glass
: technology texts and materials science texts (I can cite texts but they
: are buried in my closets).
They can't be very good texts...
The rest was ok. Beta+.
Ian
ReluctantMessiah
In article <5i1h9r$flc$1...@fremont.ohsu.edu>,
Grant Hughes <hug...@ohsu.edu> wrote:
>
>In your admirable pursuit of the truth, you have wasted over a dozen lines
>of text chastizing my admitedly ignorant post.
How can that be a waste? In fact, how can any usenet post be a waste?? ;)
-j "NMI" c
--
---
A woman needs a fish like a man needs a bicycle.
Alan Bostick
In article <5i1h9r$flc$1...@fremont.ohsu.edu>,
hug...@ohsu.edu (Grant Hughes) wrote:
> In article <33440c70...@news.cybergate.com>,
> Judy Johnson <jjoh...@cybergate.com> wrote:
> >Well, your understanding is wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong. Your
> >punsihment for reviving The Thread That Will Not Die is two fold:
> >
> >1) First do a search via Deja News for afu threads with "Glass" in the
> >subject line, read EVERY STINKIN' ONE of 'em. Pay particular
> >attention to a few lengthly post by Ian "Man of Many Talents" York.
> >(I'd send you to the archives, but they seem to be a bit under-the
> >weather, and not up to a visit right now.)
> >
> >2] Park yourself in front of a convienient window. Remain there for
> >200 years. Report back if you see the glass flow.
> >
> >And now, for the ceremonial Incantation To Permanently End This
> >Misbegotten Thread:
> >
> >Judy "Run away! Run away!" Johnson
> >
>
> In your admirable pursuit of the truth, you have wasted over a dozen lines
> of text chastizing my admitedly ignorant post. Perhaps you could have
> used that precious space to briefly outline the physical chemistry of
> glass.
Why should she go over the physical chemistry of glass, when it's been
done to death over and over again.
Do what she says. Look for Ian York's posts on the subject. Then apologize
for wasting everyone's precious time.
Alan "Sweet Jesus on crutches, what am I doing posting to a 'Glass Flows'
thread??!!" Bostick
--
Alan Bostick | "You're a lawyer, I'm a vampire. There is
mailto:abos...@netcom.com | such a thing as professional courtesy."
news:alt.grelb | Stephen Dedman, "Never Seen by Waking Eyes"
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
Steven Tyler
Considering that B+ (beta+ to you) was the best that I did in college,
it's a good thing those texts are buried and my chosen profession is
computer programming, fixing, and teaching.
I like the wit in your post. It is also interesting to note that the
concept of elasticity has nothing to do with elastic bands. On the
plastic-elastic scale (just made up by me), elastic bands are way down
near the plastic side.
Thanks,
Steve
Simon Slavin
In article <5i0mg0$9uo$1...@fremont.ohsu.edu>,
hug...@ohsu.edu (Grant Hughes) wrote:
> In article <5i0b20$3...@saltmine.radix.net>, Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net> wrote:
> >The April 2, 1997 New York Times quotes the MIT Fellow who invented
> >holographic chocolate as saying that glass flows, and after a hundred
> >years a window will be thicker at the bottom than on the top. [snip]
>
> [snip]
>
> I have also read that older glass panes show marked thickening towards the
> bottom.
Grant, please read the FAQ for a group before posting to it.
The 'Kill Ted Frank' club is now open to additional membership.
Subscription: two-fifty.
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin -- Computer Contractor. | A cute girl asked me yesterday,
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | so now I care.
Check email address for spam-guard. | -- tan...@math.wisc.edu
Junk email not welcome at this site. | (Stephen Will Tanner)
Barry Traylor
Grant Hughes <hug...@ohsu.edu> wrote in article
<5i1h9r$flc$1...@fremont.ohsu.edu>...
> In article <33440c70...@news.cybergate.com>,
> Judy Johnson <jjoh...@cybergate.com> wrote:
> >On 3 Apr 1997 16:39:28 GMT, hug...@ohsu.edu (Grant Hughes) wrote:
<snip, cackle, plop>
> In your admirable pursuit of the truth, you have wasted over a dozen
lines
> of text chastizing my admitedly ignorant post. Perhaps you could have
> used that precious space to briefly outline the physical chemistry of
> glass.
What, and ruin all of the fun at your expense?
Barry "I may not know anything, but I can tease" @ Tredyffrin
Jeremy W. Burgeson
he...@panix.com (Harry MF Teasley) wrote:
>Shut up, read the faq, get a life, look before you leap, don't point
>fingers, don't talk with your mouth full, quit with the snivelling, check
>Dejanews like you were told, drop the wounded indignance, don't take Judy
>on assuming she can't eat your lunch without half trying.
You forgot "Don't drive on railroad tracks"
Jeremy "Hey, I happen to agree with that one" Burgeson
Jerry Bauer
In article <5i2094$l...@panix2.panix.com>,
Madeleine Page <mp...@panix.com> wrote:
>Grant Hughes wrote:
>[snipsnap]
>: I have also read that older glass panes show marked thickening towards the
>: bottom.
>
>Grant Hughes is a *horrible* man.
>
>Madeleine "may he spend eternity with Moe Skeeter and Felicks His Wounds
>Derzhinsky" Page
>
I've read that some older glass panes show marked thickening towards the
bottom. You have too. If you haven't:
"Some older glass panes show marked thickening towards the bottom."
Now you have. (I admit, I weaseled with "Some".)
In fact, I've seen old glass thicker at the bottom. Maybe you have, too.
However, the persistent, irritating datum is not that there exist
panes that are thicker at the bottom, but that their existence "proves"
that grass throws.
Grant Hughes may or may not be a horrible man, but his having said that
he had read that does not indicate one way or the other.
The rabid nit-picker could argue that the word "thickening" reveals a
bias toward its being a result of an ongoing process. From the rest
of the article (concealed in "[snipsnap]" above), I'd think that would
be an accurate assessment. Grant Hughes probably believed that the
thickness had increased over time. Perhaps he still does.
If so, the "class doesn't show" camp believes that he is mistaken in
that regard. But a lot of them are meany-heads, anyway.
Jerry Randal Bauer
Rose Marie Holt
In article <5i38gq$l...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, jcop...@nyx10.cs.du.edu
(ReluctantMessiah) wrote:
>
> How can that be a waste? In fact, how can any usenet post be a waste?? ;)
I think the proper question is, how can one post be called a waste
relative to any other post?
Some threads will always be with us. Patience is a virtue. I am at least
half as smart as MattMcIrvin, I got all the way to age 40 and through a
chemistry degree from a prestigious university and I had to learn about
glass from the Usenet. Although I do, seriously, understand that the
unaware (like myself) were created to provide foils for the slashing wit
of afu.
> A woman needs a fish like a man needs a bicycle.
YM "oyster"
Grant Hughes
In article <5i3o5e$r...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
Jerry Bauer <ba...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
>In article <5i2094$l...@panix2.panix.com>,
>Madeleine Page <mp...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Grant Hughes wrote:
>>[snipsnap]
>>: I have also read that older glass panes show marked thickening towards the
>>: bottom.
>>
>>Grant Hughes is a *horrible* man.
>>
>>Madeleine "may he spend eternity with Moe Skeeter and Felicks His Wounds
>>Derzhinsky" Page
>>
>
>I've read that some older glass panes show marked thickening towards the
>bottom. You have too. If you haven't:
>
>Grant Hughes may or may not be a horrible man, but his having said that
>he had read that does not indicate one way or the other.
>
>The rabid nit-picker could argue that the word "thickening" reveals a
>bias toward its being a result of an ongoing process. From the rest
>of the article (concealed in "[snipsnap]" above), I'd think that would
>be an accurate assessment. Grant Hughes probably believed that the
>thickness had increased over time. Perhaps he still does.
>
I am not a *horrible* man, although I am beginning to feel that way. Yes
I did believe at one time that the thickening mentioned above was due to
an ongoing fluid motion. I can now say that I have been "saved" by these
gracious souls; I see the light! But alas, I have unwittingly passed
this bogus idea on to others. For that I am eternally ashamed.
I thank you Jerry for not assuming my guilt.
Grant C. Hughes
>(...)
>Jerry Randal Bauer
Adam Felson
No really it flows! I've seen glass panels thicker on the bottom.
The pyramids are bigger on the bottom: rock flows!
Many skyscrapers are bigger on the bottom: steel and concrete flow!
Tony Sweeney
Jerry Bauer wrote:
> I've read that some older glass panes show marked thickening towards the
I've read that some older women show marked thickening towards the
> bottom. You have too. If you haven't:
bottom. You have too. If you haven't:
> "Some older glass panes show marked thickening towards the bottom."
"Some older women show marked thickening towards the bottom."
> Now you have. (I admit, I weaseled with "Some".)
Now you have. (I admit, I weaseled with "Some".)
> In fact, I've seen old glass thicker at the bottom. Maybe you have, too.
In fact, I've seen old women thicker at the bottom. Maybe you have,
too.
> However, the persistent, irritating datum is not that there exist
> panes that are thicker at the bottom, but that their existence "proves"
> that grass throws.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Uh, pardon me?
Tony "ducking and running" Sweeney.
Unknown
jjoh...@cybergate.com (Judy Johnson) cost the Net hundreds, if not
thousands of dollars writing in
<33440c70...@news.cybergate.com>:
[snipped gl*ss fl*w stuff]
>And now, for the ceremonial Incantation To Permanently End This
>Misbegotten Thread:
>
>Hitler, Hitler, Bo Bitler
>Banana Fana Fo Fitler
>Fie Fi Moe Mitler
>Hitler!
>
>Foo Foo THIS!
I'll see your Hitler and raise you a global thermonuclear war.
Hansje the One Who Wouldn't Mention Lucas Refr^W^W
+--- Hans Derycke ---- hderycke at mindspring dot com ---------------------+
[...] Henry Shreve [...] cleared a 160-mile-long logjam on the Mississippi
River. Before you mess with Americans, remember that we have logjams that
wouldn't even fit inside many of your countries. And men like Henry Shreve,
to handle them. -- Edward Rice.
Rick Tyler
On Thu, 03 Apr 1997 12:14:39 -0800, Steven Tyler
<sct...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
>This gave rise to the UL that glass flows.
>
>Thanks,
>Steve
I've _never_ posted to a glass fl*w thread.
-- Rick "No Relation (tm)" Tyler
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Glossing over your gross inadequacies in being able to infer unstated information in a post,
let's just come right out and bludgeon you with the naked truth." -- HTH
+ Remove 'goaway' to e-mail + 'www.urbanlegends.com' to remove newbieness. +
Madeleine Page
Grant Hughes wrote, quoting me in mildly intemperate mode:
[beaucoup snippage]
: >>Grant Hughes is a *horrible* man.
: >
: I am not a *horrible* man, although I am beginning to feel that way. Yes
: I did believe at one time that the thickening mentioned above was due to
: an ongoing fluid motion. I can now say that I have been "saved" by these
: gracious souls; I see the light! But alas, I have unwittingly passed
: this bogus idea on to others. For that I am eternally ashamed.
A most elegant recovery, sir! Congratulations! Even the meanyesthead will
forgive you for reviving the vicious viscous thread now.
Madeleine "Grant Hughes is *not* a horrible man after all" Page
law...@aol.com
I'm sorry - I tried real hard to saty out of this
Every single chocolate bunny that I personally have ever eaten
has been thicker on the bottom.
Is holographic chocolate an edible art form or an alchemical
engineering recipe and can I buy the recipe?
Can we rename this thread and continue with chocolate UL's
or has it all gone to the dogs?
Linda - bittersweet, but with a fine snap
Enkidu
In article <19970405071...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
law...@aol.com wrote:
}Can we rename this thread and continue with chocolate UL's
}or has it all gone to the dogs?
Throwing chocolate ULs to the dogs? Oh, you horrible woman!
Omar
--
Opinions presented here do not reflect those of my employer. Extraordinarily, they do reflect the opinions of the Klatta Barata Niktu fraternity and waste ethanol disposal corporation, Austin, TX.
Respondants kindly asked to use the spacebar.
Ian A. York
In article <5i0mg0$9uo$1...@fremont.ohsu.edu>,
Grant Hughes <hug...@ohsu.edu> wrote:
>
>It is my understanding that normal glass is a super-viscous liquid at
>normal ambient temperatures. This is because glass has no regular crystal
Others have already pointed out the minor error in your post, but I need
to take out my "does not!" post to rotate the oil and replace the tires
anyway (remember, every three millionth repetition, routine maintenance or
the warrenty is voided), so here it is:
There is an article by Florin Neumann at
<http://www.ualberta.ca/~bderksen/florin.html> which cites in its
debunking of this legend the following references:
Doremus, R. H. (1994) Glass Science, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 339 pp. ISBN 0471891746.
Elliott, S. R. (1994) Amorphous Solids: An Introduction. In: Catlow, C. R.
A. (eds.), "Defects and Disorder in Crystalline and Amorphous Solids",
NATO Advanced Studies Institutes Series; Series C, Mathematical and
Physical Sciences, 418, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht: 73-86.
ISBN 0792326105.
Feltz, A. (1993) Amorphous Inorganic Materials and Glasses. VCH
Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Weinheim/VCH Publishers, New York, 446 pp. ISBN
3527284214/1560812125.
Gutzow, I. and Schmelzer, J. (1995) The Vitreous State: Thermodynamics,
Structure, Rheology, and Crystallization. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 468 pp.
ISBN 0387590870.
Jeanloz, R. and Williams, Q. (1991) Solid-State Physics: Glasses Come to
Order. Nature, 350: 659-60.
Pfaender, H. G. (1996) Schott Guide to Glass, 2nd Edition. Chapman & Hall,
London, 207 pp. ISBN 0412719606.
Plumb, R. C. (1989) Antique windowpanes and the flow of supercooled
liquids. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(12): 994-996.
Rawson, H. (1991) Glasses and Their Applications. Royal Institute of
Metals Book, Royal Institute of Metals, London, 499: 166 pp. ISBN
0901462896.
Tammann, G. (1933) Der Glaszustand. Voss, Leipzig, 123 pp.
One of those references (Antique windowpanes and the flow of supercooled
liquids. Robert C. Plumb. The Journal of Chemical Education 66(12),
994-6, 1989) is available in full at
<http://www.ualberta.ca/~bderksen/windowpane.html>). It in turn cites
other peer-reviewed refences in its debunking:
1. Tolman, C.A.; Jackson, N. B. In Essays in Physical Chemistry;
Lippincott, W. T. Ed.; Am. Chem. Soc.: Washington, DC, 1988; Chapter 3.
2. Ernsberger, F. M. In Glass: Science and Technology; Uhlmann, D. R.;
Kreidle, N. J., Eds.; Acad.: New York, 1980; Vol. V, Chapter 1.
3. Slater, J. C. Introduction to Chemical Physics; McGraw-Hill: New York,
1939; p 456.
4. Douglas, R. W. Brit. J. Appl. Phys. 1966, 17, 435-448.
5. Hall, J. A.; Leaver, V. M. J. Sci. Inst. 1961, 38, 178-185.
6. Holloway, D. G. The Physical Properties of Glass; Wykeham: London,
1973; pp 131-143.
7. Muspratt, S. Chemistry Theoretical, Practical & Analytical as Applied
and Relating to the Arts and Manufactures; Mackenzie: London, 1860; Vol.
II, pp 21-216.
8. Chance, H. J. Soc. Arts 1856, 4, 222-231.
One of these references (Ernsberger, F. M. In Glass: Science and
Technology; Uhlmann, D. R.; Kreidle, N. J., Eds.; Acad.: New York, 1980;
Vol. V, Chapter 1.) explicitly says:
There is a widespread opinion that glasses are supercooled liquids and
therefore have a finite viscosity at ordinary ambient temperatures.
Stories are told of glasses flowing under their own weight: of ancient
windowpanes that are thicker at the bottom; of glass that has sagged in
storage. These observations must find other explanations, because
glasses of commercially useful compositions are in fact rigid solids at
ordinary temperatures.
More:
Glass is an amorphous solid. A material is amorphous when it has no
long-range order, that is, when there is no regularity in the
arrangement of its molecular constituents on a scale larger than a few
times the size of these groups. ... A solid is a rigid material; IT DOES
NOT FLOW WHEN IT IS SUBJECTED TO MODERATE FORCES. More quantitatively, a
solid can be defined as a material with a viscosity of more than about
10^15 P (poises). --Doremus, Glass Science, 1973
The highest observed macro stress level acheived is only 20% of that,
and was done to a glass fiber (as close to flawless as we can get).
Therefore, we can not apply a yield stress to the glass that could cause
it to flow without first breaking our sample. If, somehow, magically,
you could apply a stress to an unflawed sample, then the observed
plastic deformation (e2) would be roughly 1/15000 the magnitude of the
applied stress (in kg/mm^2). So even if you could magically apply a
yielding stress, then you would not be able to measure the deformation.
This applies to glasses below 600C (or 270C for infinite time lengths).
--Elastic-Plastic Problems, B.D. Annin and G.P. Cherepanov, c 1988, The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (paraphrased by Scott
Sehlhorst)
We use glass in this case, not because it is transparent, but because
its rigidity and permanence of shape are better than steel or concrete.
--Preston, J. Appl. Phys. (13) pp623-654, 1942
1. "A glass is an amorphous solid which exhibits a glass transition"
2. "A solid is a material whose shear viscosity exceeds 10^14.6
poise" --Physics of Amorphous Materials_ by S. R. Elliott (London:
Longman Group Ltd, 1983; ISBN 0-582-44636-8), from the definitions
section, p. 5
There's only one article that even remotely supports your contention, and
its very support actually refutes it, because it concludes that glass
could only flow if several real-world considerations were ignored: ou'd
have to have a piece of glass several miles long to observe any flow, and
it would take several million years for the effect to manifest itself.
They dismiss with a wave of their hands the objection that a piece of
glass that huge would crumble under its own weight, destroying the
evidence in much less than a million years . ("Gravity-Induced Flow of a
Structural Glass at Zero Temperature", by Clare C. Yu and S. N.
Coppersmith, from Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 131-133, 1991, pp
476-478). This is taken from Ray Depew's comments on the article; use
DejaNews to find the whole thing.
Further, the claim that people make to support their contention--that old
windows are thicker at the bottom--is trivially refuted, and so there is
no evidence that glass does flow. Two people in the past couple of weeks
in this thread have actually gone and looked at the windows in their old
houses, or their old cathedrals. Stephen Tonkin
<as...@aegis1.demon.co.uk> determined that "it is twaddle. In the
buildings I looked at many, but not all, of windows of uneven thickness
have the thicker glass at the bottom. Some have it at the side. A few
have it at the top." Charles Dimmick (dim...@ccsu.ctstateu.edu) said
"The south-facing windows of St. Peter's Church, Cheshire, Connecticut,
built in 1840, have panes that undulate, as though they had flowed. The
problem is that while most of the panes have undulations that would
indicate downward flow, 1/6 of the panes have undulations that would
indicate sidewards flow, and a few of the panes have undulations that
would indicate flow at 45 degrees to straight down." They therefore agree
with medieval stained-glass-window restorer Peter Gibson, who said that
"in a lifetime of dismantling medieval glass [windows] he had seen
hundreds of pieces that were thicker at the top."
This also agrees with the interpretation that the irregularity of the
glass is due to the Crown glass manufacturing method, as described in
(Muspratt, S. Chemistry Theoretical, Practical & Analytical as Applied
and Relating to the Arts and Manufactures; Mackenz)ie: London, 1860; Vol.
II, pp 21-216) by Sheridan Muspratt.
These are not all the references available that debunk this particular
legend. You can find more at
<http://www.urbanlegend.com/science/glass.flow>.
The sci.physics FAQ at <http://www.weburbia.com/physics/glass.html> also
debunks this legend.
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
Bob Hiebert
In article <5i6k19$a...@panix.com>, iay...@panix.com (Ian A. York) wrote:
The pendantultimate list of silicate diarrhea debunking sources.
For some reason, tonight I noticed that Ian's post was 170 lines long. Now
it occurs to me that this is bigger than some FAQs I've read, and this is
mostly a list of pointers to yet more sources. Why do people fight such
overwhelming odds? I know this has been discussed before, but KEE-rist
that's a lot of compelling evidence.
Can we get this on some International popular media (I know, I know. I mean
other than AFU). I'd be happy with just some US television coverage. If we
can get this into the public brain, there will be a hope, however small,
that when my children grow up they won't have to read this thread (or use
whatever the popular UI is at the time).
Bob "always gone against the flow, but used to believe the UL" Hiebert
--
E-mail address has bogus info. Modify to reply.
For more information on Urban legends,
set your sites on http://www.urbanlegends.com
Madeleine Page
John W. Lemons III wrote (and, oh Grant, look what you begat!):
: On Thu, 03 Apr 1997 20:27:03 GMT, jjoh...@cybergate.com (Judy
: Johnson) wrote:
: >On 3 Apr 1997 16:39:28 GMT, hug...@ohsu.edu (Grant Hughes) wrote:
: >>It is my understanding that normal glass is a super-viscous liquid at
[snip - I couldn't bear to see that stuff again]
: >Well, your understanding is wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong. Your
: >punsihment for reviving The Thread That Will Not Die is two fold:
: Hmmmm...
: I did some remodeling work on an old German farm house, built about
: 150 years ago.
[snip]
: Some of the glass was not only thicker at
: the bottom, but thicker that the crevace that was holding it and was
: "oozing" over the edge ever so slightly, like 1/8 to 1/4mm or so.
: This "oozing" was VERY consistant over the length of the pane.
Good god.
: Any ideas what could cause that?
A change in the laws of physics? The building and its glass were in fact
pre-Roman? (Think of the Portland Vase in the British Museum) You'd taken
more than five hits of acid and are legally insane? The glass was
precariously resting on dried out putty and you assumed that what you saw
was "oozing" rather than the original edge? The house you were renovating
was on Mars? Government agents in black helicopters smuggled the glass into
place to make you post to Usenet and look like a raving idjit?
Madeleine "am I getting warm?" Page
Brian Trosko
John W. Lemons III <jxle...@myriad.net> wrote:
: Well, since I jsut stumbled onto the thread tonight, good guess.
Here's a friendly clue, lackwit: Read the *entire* thread before
following up. See, you just might find that the points you're going to
raise have already been raised (they have), or that your question might
already have been answered (it has), or even that people might have
already posted resources to check on for further information (they have).
: I was asking if anyone could explay my opservations. I was hoping
: that I would get an intelegent response or two. Unfortunatly, I ran
: into you and your utter garbage of a response.
You're an utter wanker.
: I think I'll lump you in with the previous response.
Ah. You've now managed to attack *two* regular and valued posters to this
group, thus proving beyond reasonable doubt your status as first-class
kneebiter and general all-around jackass. And all that in only 3 posts
to AFU. Isn't that some sort of record?
: Bite me.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
Brian "Sod off" Trosko
Bob Hiebert
>I think I'll lump you in with the previous response.
>Bite me.
If you lump everyone in that bucket that is tired of watching this thread
grow to 50-60 posts a day, then you can plonk the whole fucking group (read
that "unsubscribe").
I can see maybe getting upset about Madeleine's response (though if you read
any basic info about usenet you'd know better than to jump into a group
like that). On the other hand, Judy was incredibly polite about it, and
even tried to offer you a free clue. You come back with the same spastic
shit response.
I know how to use a killfile. I don't use it on threads, because the title
of the thread is not always indicative of the content. Therefore, I have
had to scan through the 900 posts in the last three months. A person's
name, however, is usually indicative of the content, so your pathetic "bite
me" shit has been permanantly plonked into the ether.
>Cheers!
>John
Fuck off.
Bob Hiebert
John W. Lemons III
>On 3 Apr 1997 16:39:28 GMT, hug...@ohsu.edu (Grant Hughes) wrote:
>
>
>>It is my understanding that normal glass is a super-viscous liquid at
>>normal ambient temperatures. This is because glass has no regular crystal
>>lattice structure (something that it chracteristic of the solid state).
>>As a result, glass obeys the properties of a liquid, and will eventually
>>conform to the shape of its container. Heating glass merely decreases its
>>viscosity, and its liquid qualities become more apparent.
>
>Well, your understanding is wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong. Your
>punsihment for reviving The Thread That Will Not Die is two fold:
Hmmmm...
I did some remodeling work on an old German farm house, built about
150 years ago. I should point out that I have not proof the glass was
original, but it was pretty poorly made, with lots of flaws, and
inconsistancies in thickness. However, the glass that was left, (most
of it broken) WAS thicker on the bottom. Someone else posted that
this was because of poor glass making. But this doesn't explain
another fact I observed. Some of the glass was not only thicker at
the bottom, but thicker that the crevace that was holding it and was
"oozing" over the edge ever so slightly, like 1/8 to 1/4mm or so.
This "oozing" was VERY consistant over the length of the pane.
Any ideas what could cause that?
Cheers,
john
------------------------------------------------------
Wake up and smell the Clintons!
Anti-Spam-Alert: remove the x from my address to reply!
John W. Lemons III
On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 03:02:31 GMT, jjoh...@cybergate.com (Judy
Johnson) wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 01:27:57 GMT, jxle...@myriad.net (John W. Lemons
>III) wrote:
>
>[major sniparooni of oozing glass story]
>
>One, two, three, four....
>
>[Several Deep Breaths]
>
>John, 'ol chum, 'ol buddy, 'ol savings and loan pal...
Good lord... another one.
>I suggest you brace yourself for some potentially unpleasant responses
>to your post, which I'm sure you think was perfectly reasonable.
Why, yes, I think it was. Don't you just love the 1st ammendment?
>I did a search in DejaNews and came up with 890, count 'em, 890
>friggin' posts with the word "glass" in the subject line between Jan
>1, 1997 and March 1, 1997. I offer this datum in hopes of explaining
>why the denizens of AFU are reeeelly sick of this topic.
Well, 'ol chum, 'ol buddy, 'ol savings and loan pal, learn to use a
KILL FILTER if you don't like it!!! DON'T READ IT!!!
>I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt
OH! Its my LUCKY DAY!!!!
>, that you haven't seen Dr.
>Nork's recent repost (for the gadzillionths time) which pretty much
>sums up the collective knowlege of AFU on oozing glass. I'm also
>assuming that you are unable to reach the AFU archives right now,
>because of technical difficulties.
Well, since I jsut stumbled onto the thread tonight, good guess.
I noticed some posts from some people that really sounded like they
knew what they were talking about. If you have read the entire post,
I was asking if anyone could explay my opservations. I was hoping
that I would get an intelegent response or two. Unfortunatly, I ran
into you and your utter garbage of a response.
>The anti-flowsians have provided more than enough information to
>support their side. Make a little effort and read it, then if you've
>got something unique to add, well then...
Good lord... Learn to use a kill file if it bothers you so much...
>Take it to, ah, sci.astro.amateur..yeah..that's it. Sci.astro.amateur.
>Those guys would LOVE to talk about this sorta thing. They'd welcome
>you with open arms. Yeah. That's the ticket.
I think I'll lump you in with the previous response.
Bite me.
Cheers!
John
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, jxle...@myriad.net (John W. Lemons III) said:
>useless... Thank god for kill filters, that way I don't have to put
>up with people that post utter crap.
So you never read your own posts then?
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com), Rochester Flying Club
<a href="http://www.servtech.com/public/ptomblin/rfc/">RFC Web Page</a>
RFC is selling two of our PA28-181 Piper Archer IIs. See web page for details.
Judy Johnson
[major sniparooni of oozing glass story]
One, two, three, four....
[Several Deep Breaths]
John, 'ol chum, 'ol buddy, 'ol savings and loan pal...
I suggest you brace yourself for some potentially unpleasant responses
to your post, which I'm sure you think was perfectly reasonable.
I did a search in DejaNews and came up with 890, count 'em, 890
friggin' posts with the word "glass" in the subject line between Jan
1, 1997 and March 1, 1997. I offer this datum in hopes of explaining
why the denizens of AFU are reeeelly sick of this topic.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you haven't seen Dr.
Nork's recent repost (for the gadzillionths time) which pretty much
sums up the collective knowlege of AFU on oozing glass. I'm also
assuming that you are unable to reach the AFU archives right now,
because of technical difficulties.
However, if you have any web capabilities at all, I strongly suggest:
1) that ye get thee to DejaNews, and read the previous incarnations of
this pustulent thread
2) and go to: http://www.ualberta.ca/~bderksen/antique.html, [1] where
two of the papers mentioned by Ian can be found
3) and its "bunny", dammit.
The anti-flowsians have provided more than enough information to
support their side. Make a little effort and read it, then if you've
got something unique to add, well then...
Take it to, ah, sci.astro.amateur..yeah..that's it. Sci.astro.amateur.
Those guys would LOVE to talk about this sorta thing. They'd welcome
you with open arms. Yeah. That's the ticket.
Nothin' but us meany heads, here.
Judy "and if anyone else pipes up on this without doing the suggested
research beforehand, Vicki will have Binky the Enforcer visit you"
Johnson
1] Which I found thanks to Grant's tip. Good show, and I'm glad you
converted!
John W. Lemons III
On 5 Apr 1997 21:58:40 -0500, mp...@panix.com (Madeleine Page) wrote:
>John W. Lemons III wrote (and, oh Grant, look what you begat!):
>: Some of the glass was not only thicker at
>: the bottom, but thicker that the crevace that was holding it and was
>: "oozing" over the edge ever so slightly, like 1/8 to 1/4mm or so.
>: This "oozing" was VERY consistant over the length of the pane.
>Good god.
Fist off, bite me.
>: Any ideas what could cause that?
>
>A change in the laws of physics? The building and its glass were in fact
>pre-Roman?
Second off, bite me.
>You'd taken
>more than five hits of acid and are legally insane?
Third off, Bite me.
>The glass was
>precariously resting on dried out putty and you assumed that what you saw
>was "oozing" rather than the original edge?
Fourth off, bite me.
I havn't seen too much 150 year old clear putty. Have you?
>The house you were renovating
>was on Mars?
Fifth off, bite me.
>Government agents in black helicopters smuggled the glass into
>place to make you post to Usenet and look like a raving idjit?
Sixth off, bite me.
>Madeleine "am I getting warm?" Page
My entire post was simple stating the facts as I observed them. Which
I might note you CONVIENEINTLY snipped out a lot of them. I WAS NOT
saying it was flowing, I was asking if anyone had any ideas what could
cause the effects I saw. I can see now that your posts are about
useless... Thank god for kill filters, that way I don't have to put
up with people that post utter crap.
Cheers!
John
PS> Bite me.
Michael Craft
> > It is my understanding that normal glass is a super-viscous liquid at
> > normal ambient temperatures. This is because glass has no regular crystal
> > lattice structure (something that it chracteristic of the solid state).
> > As a result, glass obeys the properties of a liquid, and will eventually
> > conform to the shape of its container. Heating glass merely decreases its
> > viscosity, and its liquid qualities become more apparent.
> >
> > bottom.
> >
> You may well have read it, that doesn't make it any more true though.
> TRy checking the FAQ or even the archives at
> http://www.urbanlegends.com
That site merely vectors more false legands!
> you will see as have many others that glass is a SOLID, the whole
> liquid story is just that, a story.
So glass is a flowing solid or do solids flow, generally? Are you
arguing that window makers selected panes to appear wavy and to
mismatch other windows on purpose?
Michael Craft
> >>It is my understanding that normal glass is a super-viscous liquid at
> >>normal ambient temperatures. This is because glass has no regular crystal
> >>lattice structure (something that it chracteristic of the solid state).
> >>As a result, glass obeys the properties of a liquid, and will eventually
> >>conform to the shape of its container. Heating glass merely decreases its
> >>viscosity, and its liquid qualities become more apparent.
> >
> >punsihment for reviving The Thread That Will Not Die is two fold:
>
> 150 years ago. I should point out that I have not proof the glass was
> original, but it was pretty poorly made, with lots of flaws, and
> inconsistancies in thickness. However, the glass that was left, (most
> of it broken) WAS thicker on the bottom. Someone else posted that
> this was because of poor glass making. But this doesn't explain
> the bottom, but thicker that the crevace that was holding it and was
> "oozing" over the edge ever so slightly, like 1/8 to 1/4mm or so.
> This "oozing" was VERY consistant over the length of the pane.
All over the Bay Area are window panes as you describe that were
installed in the 1920's, for example. Was glass making really that
shoddy in the 1920's? How come nearly every old house has mixmatched
panes, some clear, some a little wavy, and some rather distorted, in
a random pattern, as if contractors were incapable of telling the
difference, or was this simply a style of the times?
Barry Traylor
John W. Lemons III <jxle...@myriad.net> wrote in article
<33471ebb...@news.myriad.net>...<snip>
>
> Fist off, bite me.
>
<chomp>
>
> Second off, bite me.
>
<munch>
>
> Third off, Bite me.
>
<Urrp>
>
> Fourth off, bite me.
>
<chomp>
>
> Fifth off, bite me.
>
<munch>
>
> Sixth off, bite me.
>
<Urrp> Thanks for lunch!
Barry "Pass me a toothpick, I think I have some Lemons peel stuck in my
teeth" @ Tredyffrin
Emily Kelly
John W. Lemons III <jxle...@myriad.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 03:02:31 GMT, jjoh...@cybergate.com (Judy
>Johnson) wrote:
>
>
You have many savings and loan pals?
>>I suggest you brace yourself for some potentially unpleasant responses
>>to your post, which I'm sure you think was perfectly reasonable.
>
>Why, yes, I think it was. Don't you just love the 1st ammendment?
One...
>Well, 'ol chum, 'ol buddy, 'ol savings and loan pal, learn to use a
>KILL FILTER if you don't like it!!! DON'T READ IT!!!
Two...
>>I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt
>
>OH! Its my LUCKY DAY!!!!
Three...
>>, that you haven't seen Dr.
>>Nork's recent repost (for the gadzillionths time) which pretty much
>>sums up the collective knowlege of AFU on oozing glass. I'm also
>>assuming that you are unable to reach the AFU archives right now,
>>because of technical difficulties.
>
>Well, since I jsut stumbled onto the thread tonight, good guess.
Four...
No, I simply can't go on; I must stop here. Ladies and Gentlemen, we
have a winner. Mr. Lemons III, you display a rare mastery of the form.
Let's tally up, shall we?
1. Constitutional Defense
2. The Killfile Argument
3. Ooh! Sarcasm!
4. "But I just found the thread..."
And with such a lush verdure of ALL-CAPS, miplsings, and exclamation
points!!!
>I was asking if anyone could explay my opservations.
Madeleine offered several alternate explanations that are at least as
likely as the notion that your glass flowed. Judy pointed you toward
several more general treatises which might help to explain your situation.
If you choose not to accept their explanations, then by all means search
for one that satisfies you. But search somewhere else.
>I was hoping
>that I would get an intelegent response or two. Unfortunatly, I ran
>into you and your utter garbage of a response.
[...]
>I think I'll lump you in with the previous response.
>Bite me.
Oh, I spoke too soon--Five! The ad hominem attack always makes for a
stirring ending. And I think you've stumbled upon a real winner with
"Bite me". I especially like the way you use it as a repeated motif.
If you don't overplay your hand, it could well become the next
"Like, duh".
>Cheers!
>John
Emily "Cheers! right back atcha" Kelly
--
"...the totality of assness in all its glory, the universal, the ideal,
the single unitary all-enveloping rump from which all others derive their
qualities. How could that _not_ be an expression of raw carnal desire?"
(For the AFU Archive: http://www.urbanlegends.com/) --Angus Johnston
Emily Kelly
In article <5i8hvb$r...@idiom.com>, Michael Craft <j...@idiom.com> has a
great deal of difficulty attributing Rob Cooper before writing:
>>
>> TRy checking the FAQ or even the archives at
>> http://www.urbanlegends.com
>
>That site merely vectors more false legands!
And how would you know *that*, pray tell? You can't even *see* it
right now!!! Got you there.
>So glass is a flowing solid or do solids flow, generally? Are you
>arguing that window makers selected panes to appear wavy and to
>mismatch other windows on purpose?
1. Glass is a solid. Glass does not flow. Therefore God is Ray Charles.
2. Yes.
Emily "" Kelly
Bob Hiebert
In article <AF6D9F03...@hearsay.demon.co.uk>, sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk.NOJUNK (Simon Slavin) wrote:
>From "sorry" through "I am eternally ashamed." to the creative
>masterpiece of Rick Tyler (which I will not sully by trimming to
>quote), alt.folklore.urban strives to obtain the best apologies,
>both in quality of language used, and in contrition. To this end,
>we pledge to maintain
A great pledge. This should be archived. Whenever.
Bob "we still need a cool handshake, but I won't wear a Fez to AFU World II"
Charles Wm. Dimmick
ReluctantMessiah wrote:
> How can that be a waste? In fact, how can any usenet post be a waste?? ;)
Mr. Messiah, or dare I call you reluctant. Please note that, unlike
your usual haunts among the magic users, alt.folklore.urban frowns
upon the usage of emoticons in postings, especially emoticons with
sexual overtones. Knowing of your distaste for cleavages inappropriately
displayed in the workplace, please consider that emoticons which are
inappropriately displayed in AFU are also distasteful. They add nothing
useful to your posting and are very distracting.
Charles Wm. "curmudgeon" Dimmick
Chaplain to the clueless
Thomas Scharle
In the June issue of "Games" magazine there is a cryptogram which
vectors "glass flows".
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Michele Tepper
John W. Lemons III <jxle...@myriad.net> wrote:
>I was asking if anyone could explay my opservations.
I can explay it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
>Bite me.
What I've always loved about this newsfroup is the high standards of
discourse that are set here.
Michele "*plonk*" Tepper
--
Michele Tepper "I think all writing should be motivated by resentment
mte...@panix.com and the desire for revenge." -- David Futrelle
The AFU FAQ is still alive and swimming: http://www.panix.com/~sean/afu/
Unknown
jxle...@myriad.net (John W. Lemons III) cost the Net hundreds, if not
thousands of dollars writing in <3348208e...@news.myriad.net>:
>Well, since I jsut stumbled onto the thread tonight, good guess.
>that I would get an intelegent response or two. Unfortunatly, I ran
1) Didn't your momma teach you to lurk before you post, and to read an
entire thread before jumping in?
2) it's 'intelligent'.
3) *plonk*, you brainfart.
Hansje the Succintulent.
+--- Hans Derycke ---- hderycke at mindspring dot com ---------------------+
The real cow tipping goes of course: Waiter brings check, turns
around, you slip a cow *under* the bill, and run as hell out of
the joint. -- Martin Heinz
Mitcho
John W. Lemons III <jxle...@myriad.net> wrote in article
:
: Fist off, bite me.
What's going on in AFUland? Why the sudden and inexplicable interest in
cyberfellatio? First we have Mr S Lamb wading in here with his homosexual
invitation for Alan to blow him, and today we have Mr Lemons with a more
traditaional hetero invitation to Ms Page (though I must confess the S&M
overtones are obvious).
Enquiring minds, etc.
M
Lizz Braver
Of all the places in the world to say "Bite me!", AFU would rank as the
least safe place.
Lizz "Summon the wolves!" Braver
Glen Quarnstrom
jxle...@myriad.net (John W. Lemons III) wrote:
<incoherent, profane blustering>
>Well, since I jsut stumbled onto the thread tonight, good guess.
>I noticed some posts from some people that really sounded like they
>knew what they were talking about. If you have read the entire post,
>I was asking if anyone could explay my opservations. I was hoping
>that I would get an intelegent response or two. Unfortunatly, I ran
>into you and your utter garbage of a response.
Judging by what you scribbled above, plus a few hundred lines of
similar drivel, I doubt you'd recognize an "intelegent" response if
you got one. FOAD, choad.
>Good lord... Learn to use a kill file if it bothers you so much...
That sound you hear is killfiles all over UseNet being set on your
name.
>Bite me.
Oh, and get a new riposte. This one's stale.
Ian A. York
Posted and mailed.
In article <5i8hvb$r...@idiom.com>, Michael Craft <j...@idiom.com> wrote:
>
>So glass is a flowing solid or do solids flow, generally? Are you
>arguing that window makers selected panes to appear wavy and to
>mismatch other windows on purpose?
If glass flows, then the references I append here are in error. Since
these include references to articles in peer-reviewed journals by experts
in materials science, it's most unlikely that glass does flow. Moreover,
included are references which provide both a refutation of the common
claim, and a satisfactory explanation for those observations which are not
refuted.
If you chosse to continue to claim that glass does flow, please explicitly
refute these specialists, point by point, without making use of claims
which they already debunk.
Simon Slavin
In article <5i3ud2$p8h$1...@fremont.ohsu.edu>,
hug...@ohsu.edu (Grant Hughes) wrote:
> [snip] I have unwittingly passed
> this bogus idea on to others. For that I am eternally ashamed.
This month in alt.folklore.urban: apologies.
From "sorry" through "I am eternally ashamed." to the creative
masterpiece of Rick Tyler (which I will not sully by trimming to
quote), alt.folklore.urban strives to obtain the best apologies,
both in quality of language used, and in contrition. To this end,
we pledge to maintain
* a newsgroup with a name and charter which imply that almost any
remark could be on-charter
* a FAQ so long it takes more than a day's light-reading time to
absorb and understand
* not one but two dedicated web sites which are so large that a
mere catalogue of their structures and filenames constitutes an
education in anthropology and sociology
* a group for which everyone with USENET access thinks they have
an appropriate question or a relevent contribution
* a postership educated in a vast number of different ways and
to different levels, able to produce viewpoints and examples
from a huge number of environments
* a set of group in-jokes, some in contravention of normal USENET
custom and others in contravention of published dictionaries,
which enable us to instantly zero-in on those who haven't read
the FAQ
* a high media-profile, guaranteed to attract not only people new
to urban folklore, but people new to USENET
* the expectation that each person posting a question or comment
will have read the group for the last few months or consulted
DejaNews before posting
* degreed, experienced and/or published contributers, willing and
able to find references for events, theories and research at the
drop of a hat
* a charter which makes contradiction of published works a mundane
by-product of intelligent conversation
* high expected standards for literacy and understanding of logic
Thank you for your kind attention.
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin -- Computer Contractor. | A cute girl asked me yesterday,
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | so now I care.
Check email address for spam-guard. | -- tan...@math.wisc.edu
Junk email not welcome at this site. | (Stephen Will Tanner)
Judy Johnson
On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 04:09:54 GMT, jxle...@myriad.net (John W. Lemons
III) wrote:
[most of rant snipped, complete with delightful references to the 1st
Amendment, suggested use of kill-files, admission of not reading
entire thread, etc.]
>Bite me.
I'm sorry John, but, although it definitely had promise, your entry in
the Inauspicious Debut By A Clueless Newbie category has been
disqualified, based on your pathetic attempt to bribe one of the
judges.
You should know the only acceptable bribe is two-fifty's worth of
gerbils.
However, if it will make you happy...
Sic 'em, Binky.
Judy "no thanks, I'm on a low-chum diet" Johnson
John W. Lemons III
On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 22:36:46 GMT, (Hans Derycke) wrote:
>jxle...@myriad.net (John W. Lemons III) cost the Net hundreds, if not
>thousands of dollars writing in <3348208e...@news.myriad.net>:
>
>>Well, since I jsut stumbled onto the thread tonight, good guess.
>
>>that I would get an intelegent response or two. Unfortunatly, I ran
>1) Didn't your momma teach you to lurk before you post, and to read an
>entire thread before jumping in?
I read all posts that were available on my news server. None of them
answered my question... thats why I posted, bone head.
>2) it's 'intelligent'.
Aren't typos a bitch? ( yu piky litl wezel )
>3) *plonk*, you brainfart.
I'm beginning to wonder if this group is full of jerks like this...
>Hansje the Succintulent
thank god...
>The real cow tipping goes of course: Waiter brings check, turns
>around, you slip a cow *under* the bill, and run as hell out of
>the joint.
Well, that explains a lot...
John W. Lemons III
On 6 Apr 1997 22:35:28 GMT, "Mitcho" <mit...@netcom.com> wrote:
>John W. Lemons III <jxle...@myriad.net> wrote in article
>: Fist off, bite me.
>
>Enquiring minds, etc.
I can't help it. I get turned on by rude closed minded women that
can't read. :)
Cheers,
John
Emily Kelly
In article <334bbf21...@news.mindspring.com>, Hans Derycke <> wrote:
>jxle...@myriad.net (John W. Lemons III) wrote:
>
>>that I would get an intelegent response or two. Unfortunatly, I ran
>
Pssst, Hansje, I'm not entirely sure, but I *think* he meant "inelegant".
Emily "and it's true, he didn't get any of those" Kelly
jon murray
Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> In a previous article, jxle...@myriad.net (John W. Lemons III) said:
> >useless... Thank god for kill filters, that way I don't have to put
> >up with people that post utter crap.
>
Gee, you know, I'm enjoying *this* glass flow thread.
Jon
***********************************************************
My address has been spam-protected. It's 'netconnect' & I live in
Australia.
***********************************************************
Michael Craft
> >So glass is a flowing solid or do solids flow, generally? Are you
> >arguing that window makers selected panes to appear wavy and to
> >mismatch other windows on purpose?
>
> If glass flows, then the references I append here are in error. Since
> these include references to articles in peer-reviewed journals by experts
> in materials science, it's most unlikely that glass does flow. Moreover,
> included are references which provide both a refutation of the common
> claim, and a satisfactory explanation for those observations which are not
> refuted.
The peers haven't explained why old glass appears to flow.
Were the glass making techniques of the 1920's really that
primitive as to not be able to produce clear window glass
and were the contractors who installed the glass were too
careless whether some of their windows flowed and some were
clear?
John W. Lemons III
On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 23:12:07 GMT, gl...@NOSPAM.cyberhighway.net (Glen
Quarnstrom) wrote:
>That sound you hear is killfiles all over UseNet being set on your
>name.
My kill file has more peolple from this group now than any other...
sad.
Harry MF Teasley
John W. Lemons III (jxle...@myriad.net) wrote:
> Bite me.
Dear Mr Lemons III,
Welcome to alt.folklore.urban. My name is Harry Teasley, and I am the
Regional Director of Flamefests, Snits, and Large Misunderstandings for
AFU GmbH. It has been brought to my attention that your participation in
one of our "red flag" threads has contravened the Wiener Act, specifically
sections IV and VII ("Inanity" and "Repetition").
Minor isolated infractions are ofttimes not prosecuted to the fullest
extent allowable, being possibly attributable to random chance or abnormal
delusionary posting. However, the mainframe at One AFU Plaza, which
filters all AFU postings and categorizes them for research purposes,
marked your posts as abnormally rich in Wiener Phrasing, and it was
automatically referred to me.
Your abnormally high per-word count seems to be due to your incredibly low
posting volume up until now. Achieving as high a Wiener Number as you
have in such a short time was thought to be beyond to scope of new
posters, but you are clearly no ordinary newbie.
You are invited therefore to be fucked and thrown to the wolves.
Regards,
Harry Teasley
Executive Vice President and Courtesy Van Driver, AFU GmbH
--
Visit the AFU archives at www.urbanlegends.com
John W. Lemons III
On Sat, 05 Apr 97 23:22:30 GMT, Bob.H...@worldnet.REMOVE.att.net
(Bob Hiebert ) wrote:
>I know how to use a killfile. I don't use it on threads, because the title
>of the thread is not always indicative of the content.
I you choose to look at the thread, don't complain that it exists.
>so your pathetic "bite
>me" shit has been permanantly plonked into the ether.
Thank god... I don't have to bother with your useless posts either...
I think I finally figured out why the ratio of bone-head, know-it-all
replies is so high in this group...
For some reason people who have nothing better to do than wait for
someone to ask a question about something they can pounce on and then
call them stupid for not knowing the right answer seem to be drawn to
this news group because the very subject matter provides them with
fertile ground for their ego-enhancing drivel. Add mister spelling
bee himself, "Hans Derycke the unknown", to that list... He is such a
sad fellow that he not only has to trounce people for their lack of
knowledge, but further enhance his pitiful ego by picking on typos as
if they were heresy.
All I can so is my kill file for this group is ever growing ...
Steven Tyler
Michael Craft wrote:
>
> > >So glass is a flowing solid or do solids flow, generally? Are you
> > >arguing that window makers selected panes to appear wavy and to
> > >mismatch other windows on purpose?
> >
> > If glass flows, then the references I append here are in error. Since
> > these include references to articles in peer-reviewed journals by experts
> > in materials science, it's most unlikely that glass does flow. Moreover,
> > included are references which provide both a refutation of the common
> > claim, and a satisfactory explanation for those observations which are not
> > refuted.
>
>
> Were the glass making techniques of the 1920's really that
> primitive as to not be able to produce clear window glass
> and were the contractors who installed the glass were too
> careless whether some of their windows flowed and some were
> clear?
Steve Writes:
Yes they were. And why do you assume that wavy glass is not clear.
Clarity has nothing to do with waviness. Do you want a dissertation
here? By the thickness defniition of waviness, prescription glasses
could be considered wavy, but they are arguably clear.
Thanks,
Steve
DaveHatunen
In article <5iamke$3...@idiom.com>, Michael Craft <j...@idiom.com> wrote:
>> >So glass is a flowing solid or do solids flow, generally? Are you
>> >arguing that window makers selected panes to appear wavy and to
>> >mismatch other windows on purpose?
>>
>> If glass flows, then the references I append here are in error. Since
>> these include references to articles in peer-reviewed journals by experts
>> in materials science, it's most unlikely that glass does flow. Moreover,
>> included are references which provide both a refutation of the common
>> claim, and a satisfactory explanation for those observations which are not
>> refuted.
>
There. You have it right there.
>Were the glass making techniques of the 1920's really that
>primitive as to not be able to produce clear window glass
>and were the contractors who installed the glass were too
>careless whether some of their windows flowed and some were
>clear?
Actaully, in the 1920s people still had a choice between old,
imperfect, cheap glass and modern, more expensive flotation glass. Many
chose the former for cost reasons. The flotation process has now become
so inexpensive, and, because it was more labor intensive, the old
process so relatively more expensive, that it now probably costs more
for the bad stuff than for the good stuff.
You seem to be a tad ignorant of fairly recent history and lifestyles.
Of course, to me the 1920s ARE fairly recent history, although still
before my time.
--
*********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) ***********
* In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... *
* Until they find out he can see, then they kill him *
*********************************************************
DaveHatunen
In article <33483eeb...@news.myriad.net>,
John W. Lemons III <jxle...@myriad.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 23:12:07 GMT, gl...@NOSPAM.cyberhighway.net (Glen
>Quarnstrom) wrote:
>>That sound you hear is killfiles all over UseNet being set on your
>>name.
>
>My kill file has more peolple from this group now than any other...
>sad.
How terribly, terribly sad for you. But keep working at it. Pretty soon
you'll have us all.
If you'd like, one of us could probably create a killfile for you to
use that would include everyone.
But "u" is quicker.
DaveHatunen
In article <3348311b...@news.myriad.net>,
>
>>jxle...@myriad.net (John W. Lemons III) cost the Net hundreds, if not
>>thousands of dollars writing in <3348208e...@news.myriad.net>:
>>
>>>Well, since I jsut stumbled onto the thread tonight, good guess.
>>
>
>>entire thread before jumping in?
>
>I read all posts that were available on my news server. None of them
>answered my question... thats why I posted, bone head.
>
>
>
>>3) *plonk*, you brainfart.
>
>I'm beginning to wonder if this group is full of jerks like this...
Yes. It is. I urge you to unsubscribe immmediately. It's infectious,
you know. You cluelessness is at risk. Quickly. Before it's too late.
Ian A. York
Posted and mailed.
In article <5iamke$3...@idiom.com>, Michael Craft <j...@idiom.com> wrote:
>>
>> If glass flows, then the references I append here are in error. Since
>
>The peers haven't explained why old glass appears to flow.
Yes they have, in the references I included in the post to which you
replied. You obviously are one of those people so confident in their
superiority that you don't even bother to read clear and simple
explanations. Try it; you'll find detailed answers to your question.
Ian "a million and five, a million and six ..." York
C. Christopher Hart
Glass DOES flow. It is a documented fact that it does. I have known this
information since freshman science. It is a solid which, over time, sags
and melts, shifting with gravity. Just part of a little law called
entropy, folks. Now, lets get back to crocodiles in the sewers or Jamie
Lee Curtis' real gender, shall we?
Martin Gilbert
"John W. Lemons III" <jle...@myriad.net> wrote:
>[thirty five lines of quote removed]
Adding:
>:)
Thanks; it's _such_ a pleasure to read that you smiled some 12-odd hours
ago. A really, really, heartwarming pleasure. Please: do tell me when
you laugh again - and if you could, please repeat your inclusion of the
ENTIRE text of the previous message. Supremely gratifying! Better, even,
than hearing your learned views on glass, newsgroup behaviour, and the
many other topics you are so plainly expert on.
Happiness just warms the cockles of my heart.
M. Kenward Gilbert XIII
--
http://www.phys.ucl.ac.uk/~mkg
Simon Slavin
In article <3346fadd...@news.myriad.net>,
jxle...@myriad.net (John W. Lemons III) wrote:
> Some of the glass was not only thicker at
> the bottom, but thicker that the crevace that was holding it and was
> "oozing" over the edge ever so slightly, like 1/8 to 1/4mm or so.
> This "oozing" was VERY consistant over the length of the pane.
>
> Any ideas what could cause that?
Sorry, John, but I think you're mistaken that the effect you
observed is due to flow. It's possible that the glass was
made in that shape and/or that the sill was made to enclose
the existing shape of the glass. The optimal shape for
holding that pane would, of course, give the idea that the
pane had flowed. My father restores antique furniture and I
have seen examples of tapered, bevelled and chamfered glass
which were quite convincing until you noticed that the same
feature occured at the top of the pane.
By some mystical coincidence, nobody has ever produced any
sideways photograph of 'oozed' glass, and it's rare to find
builders or renovators equipped with a micrometer and the
urge to measure the thickness of a pane at various points.
About 20 miles north of my parents' place is a Roman site
which has some fragments of vertically-mounted glass which
show no sign of having flowed -- however I have no evidence
that they're remained vertical for 2000 years.
[Note to some other responders: if you can't comment on the
points raised, an appropriate response is 'read the FAQ',
not insults. Note to John: replying to written insults
with more insults has little effect.]
Gordon Baldwin
In article <33493520...@news.myriad.net>,
>>John W. Lemons III <jxle...@myriad.net> wrote in article
>>: Fist off, bite me.
snippage
>>
>>Enquiring minds, etc.
>
>I can't help it. I get turned on by rude closed minded women that
>can't read. :)
>
>Cheers,
>John
As much as we get turned off by clueless yutzes who don't read the FAQ
and then post line noise?
Gordon "Madeline isn't the only meany-head" Baldwin
--
Gordon Baldwin gba...@usin.com
Olympia Washington http://www.halcyon.com/gordon
Key fingerprint = BD B5 D6 83 01 64 9C 1A EB 3D BD 29 09 7B EA FD
Steven Tyler
That kind of statement will just keep the thread alive!!!
Thanks,
Steve
hellothere
On 3 Apr 1997 16:39:28 GMT, hug...@ohsu.edu (Grant Hughes) wrote:
>It is my understanding that normal glass is a super-viscous liquid at
>normal ambient temperatures. This is because glass has no regular crystal
>lattice structure (something that it chracteristic of the solid state).
>As a result, glass obeys the properties of a liquid, and will eventually
>conform to the shape of its container. Heating glass merely decreases its
>viscosity, and its liquid qualities become more apparent.
Your understanding is wrong. Glass is not a liquid, it is an amorphus
solid. Yes it has no crystal structure--neither does obsidian rock.
Rock does not flow under pressure at STP (standard temperature and
pressure for those who are debating a scientific topic without having
taken elementary school science) and neither does glass. All
materials have a viscosity--however that viscosity in solids is so
large that the bonds holding the material together would break before
there was enough force to overcome the high viscosity and cause flow.
The viscosity of glass exceeds the min. viscosity required of solids
which is 10^15 kpoise at STP..
---------------
"By the forty-nine fornicating daughters of Thespios, a burning pinecone
makes a kunte as hot as the incense itself." -Wyrd
Ian A. York
In article <33483eeb...@news.myriad.net>,
>sad.
Please add me to the list, asshole.
Ian "plonk" York
Larry Preuss
In article <33485c62...@news.myriad.net>, jxle...@myriad.net (John
W. Lemons III) wrote:
> All I can so is my kill file for this group is ever growing ...
Oh, oh, please, add me, add me!
Larry
--
Rick Tyler
>Glass DOES flow. It is a documented fact that it does. I have known this
>information since freshman science. It is a solid which, over time, sags
>and melts, shifting with gravity. Just part of a little law called
>entropy, folks. Now, lets get back to crocodiles in the sewers or Jamie
>Lee Curtis' real gender, shall we?
>
Slooooowly he turns. Inch by inch, step by step ...
Rick "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh" Tyler
-----------------------------------------------------
Clueless Newbie: (n) 1. A person who posts stuff that has been posted a billion (that's US billion) times before,
2. A person who violates the written law of AFU, 3. Uses AOL (except Linda Lawson) or WebTV for access
Treatment: This is a temporary condition which can usually be corrected by reading the AFU FAQ sheet at
http://www.urbanlegends.com. Unless your name is Moe.
===== remove 'goaway' to e-mail =====
DaveHatunen
In article <33485c62...@news.myriad.net>,
John W. Lemons III <jxle...@myriad.net> wrote:
[...]
>For some reason people who have nothing better to do than wait for
>someone to ask a question about something they can pounce on and then
>call them stupid for not knowing the right answer seem to be drawn to
>this news group because the very subject matter provides them with
>fertile ground for their ego-enhancing drivel. Add mister spelling
>bee himself, "Hans Derycke the unknown", to that list... He is such a
>sad fellow that he not only has to trounce people for their lack of
>knowledge, but further enhance his pitiful ego by picking on typos as
>if they were heresy.
No. The irritant is not that people ask bone-headed questions. The
irritant is that they are either too stupid or too arrogant to know
it's a bone-headed question. And when even gently pointed out, they get
even more stupid and bone-headed. Just about everyone regularly in this
group has probably had the same treatment at one time or another.
>All I can so is my kill file for this group is ever growing ...
BE sure to spell my name right...
Better yet, why don't you use the "u" in your newsreader at newsgroup
level?
Harry MF Teasley
John W. Lemons III (jxle...@myriad.net) wrote:
> My kill file has more peolple from this group now than any other...
> sad.
Not taht I majke a habit of speeling or tyop flames, but I havve noticed
tha tthe force of a flame is iverse to teh number of splelling errosr or
tpyos therin. Especally when their short.
Harry "Where's the killfile at, asshole?" Teasley
Robert Warinner
Michael Craft (j...@idiom.com) wrote:
: Were the glass making techniques of the 1920's really that
: primitive as to not be able to produce clear window glass
: and were the contractors who installed the glass were too
: careless whether some of their windows flowed and some were
: clear?
First point: how do you know that the clear glass and the wavy glass
are the same age?
Second point: yes, the glass making techniques used in the 1920's
produced wavy glass. Chances are that glass mannufactured in the
1920's was manufactured by rolling which left the waves you now see.
There were basically five methods of making plate (window) glass:
- By casting: molten glass is poured into a mold and later polished.
The glass produced is often not very transparent and contains many
defects. This method was used by the Romans and survived well into
the nineteenth century.
- By the "crown glass" method: molten glass is blown into a large
sphere. The sphere is spun and a small hole is opened in the bottom
of the sphere. The sphere opens into a disk of relatively uniform
thickness.
- By the "cylinder" or "broad" method: molten glass was blown into a
cylinder which was cut open to produce a glass plate.
- By mechanical rolling: molten glass was pressed between rollers much
as sheet metal is produced. Some imperfections were still present in
the glass.
- By the "float glass" method: molten glass is poured from the furnace
onto a vat of molten metal. This allows the glass to distribute
itself evenly resulting in perfectly flat glass. The glass is free of
the defects produced by the previous mechanical processes. The float
glass method was invented 1959 by Alistair Pilkington of the
Pilkington Glass Company.
Here's a short time line showing when these methods were used:
4000 BC Glass manufactured in Near East.
1668 Broad glass method invented in St. Gobain, France.
1870 Rolled glass produced by Chance Brothers
1898 Wired glass first made
1910 Mechanical cylinder drawing machine
1913 Sheet glass drawn mechanically by Fourcault machine straight from the furnace
1918 Bicheroux process for casting, grinding and polishing of plate glass
1937 Pilkington twin grinding and polishing of plate glass
1959 Float glass method invented by Pilkington Bros.
My house, which was built in 1929, has wavy glass. Some of the waves
are horizontal, some are vertical, and some are diagonal. This is
just an artifact of their manufacture, not due to "flow".
References:
http://www.pfg.co.za/fltline.htm - Float glass manufacturing process.
http://www.pfg.co.za/history.htm - History of glass.
http://www.britglass.co.uk/news/mglass/making1.html - History of glass.
http://www.britglass.co.uk/news/mglass/making5.html - History of glass.
http://www.trp.dundee.ac.uk/research/glossary/glass.html - Glass glossary.
Andrew "MEGO" Warinner
wari...@xnet.com
wari...@ttd.teradyne.com
http://www.xnet.com/~warinner
Stay tuned for the Urban Legend Archive: http://www.urbanlegends.com
Phil Gustafson
>>John W. Lemons III <jxle...@myriad.net> wrote in article
>>: Fist off, bite me.
>>
>>cyberfellatio? today we have Mr Lemons with a more traditaional hetero
>>invitation to Ms Page (though I must confess the S&M overtones are obvious).
>
>
>I can't help it. I get turned on by rude closed minded women that
>can't read. :)
>
Madeleine.
Ph.
--
The AFU FAQ and archives await your click at http://www.urbanlegends.com
Phil Gustafson ph...@rahul.net pgu...@eng.sun.com
Lizz Braver
>In article <33493520...@news.myriad.net>,
>John W. Lemons III <jxle...@myriad.net> wrote:
>>On 6 Apr 1997 22:35:28 GMT, "Mitcho" <mit...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>John W. Lemons III <jxle...@myriad.net> wrote in article
>>>: Fist off, bite me.
>
>snippage
>>>
>>>Enquiring minds, etc.
>>
>>I can't help it. I get turned on by rude closed minded women that
>>can't read. :)
He's really going to love me, then...rude, the original meany-head, and
sexier than anything he'll ever have.
Lizz "Of course, that's not saying much" Braver
John W. Lemons III
> > On 5 Apr 1997 21:58:40 -0500, mp...@panix.com (Madeleine Page) wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > Fist off, bite me.
> >
> <chomp>
> >
> > Second off, bite me.
> >
> <munch>
> >
> > Third off, Bite me.
> >
> <Urrp>
> >
> > Fourth off, bite me.
> >
> <chomp>
> >
> > Fifth off, bite me.
> >
> <munch>
> >
> > Sixth off, bite me.
> >
>
> <Urrp> Thanks for lunch!
>
> Barry "Pass me a toothpick, I think I have some Lemons peel stuck in my
> teeth" @ Tredyffrin
:)
George Byrd
In <alt.folklore.urban>, Sun, 06 Apr 1997 23:44:49 GMT,
On "Re: Glass Flows!",
<jxle...@myriad.net (John W. Lemons III)> wrote:
>I can't help it. I get turned on by rude closed minded women that
>can't read. :)
I are not innerested in yer filthy condition.
Nobody else in this froup is either.
Either follow the longstanding posting conventions of this froup or
find another froup to post to. That means stop trying to sneak in
ascii-encoded binary data at the end of your sentences.
George the meanyhead
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc.and are NOT legal advice.
"I am not arguing with you -- I am telling you."
<< J. McN. Whistler, _The_Gentle_Art_of_Making_Enemies_ >>
DaveHatunen
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.970407...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>,
C. Christopher Hart <kirb...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>Glass DOES flow. It is a documented fact that it does. I have known this
Oh goody. That means you can supply the documentaion. Did you know
you're the first one we've ever found that could.
>information since freshman science. It is a solid which, over time, sags
>and melts, shifting with gravity. Just part of a little law called
>entropy, folks.
Your scientific expertise is underwhelming.
Now, lets get back to crocodiles in the sewers or Jamie
>Lee Curtis' real gender, shall we?
I suggest you stop worrying about the sex lives of famous people and
spend more time worrying about your education, which you have just
demonstrated to be somewhat lacking.
Emily Kelly
The indefatigable John W. Lemons III <jxle...@myriad.net> wrote:
:[Hans Derycke] is such a
:sad fellow that he not only has to trounce people for their lack of
:knowledge, but further enhance his pitiful ego by picking on typos as
:if they were heresy.
Hearsay? But if you see them yourself, surely...
Emily the Bewildered
--
"...the totality of assness in all its glory, the universal, the ideal,
the single unitary all-enveloping rump from which all others derive their
qualities. How could that _not_ be an expression of raw carnal desire?"
(For the AFU Archive: http://www.urbanlegends.com/) --Angus Johnston
Gordon Baldwin
In article <hatunenE...@netcom.com>,
DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <33485c62...@news.myriad.net>,
>John W. Lemons III <jxle...@myriad.net> wrote:
more snippage
>
>No. The irritant is not that people ask bone-headed questions. The
>irritant is that they are either too stupid or too arrogant to know
>it's a bone-headed question. And when even gently pointed out, they get
>even more stupid and bone-headed. Just about everyone regularly in this
>group has probably had the same treatment at one time or another.
Boy now I feel left out. I tried to be flamable by posting to the virgin
birth thread and the peeing on electric fence thread. I know I usually
sit in the corner and just watch, but no-one ever wants to play with me.
Gordon "Mom! they're being nice to me!" Baldwin
Ulo Melton
C. Christopher Hart wrote:
>Glass DOES flow. It is a documented fact that it does. I have known this
>information since freshman science. It is a solid which, over time, sags
>and melts, shifting with gravity. Just part of a little law called
>entropy, folks. Now, lets get back to crocodiles in the sewers or Jamie
>Lee Curtis' real gender, shall we?
Look, I don't really care if you want to post yet another unsubstantiated
statement that glass flows, and I'm only slightly annoyed at your
attempt to continue the pointless JLC discussion; but I won't sit idly
by while you insult the good name of sewergators. Apologize immediately,
you vermin.
Ulo "crocodiles, indeed" Melton
Rick Tyler
On 07 Apr 1997 15:39:38 -0700, Stephan Zielinski <szie...@well.com>
wrote:
<snip>
> [ I am a ]
> Polish / Southeastern USAen Subsistence Farmer
> UNIX System Administrator
> Pro-gun Democrat
> Large nose, receding hairline, pot belly, and cigarette addiction
>
Are you running for office?
-- Rick "We need another hero" Tyler
-------------------------------------------------
That's without 'goaway' for a SPAM free life.
Barbara Mikkelson
Ulo Melton (melt...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> but I won't sit idly by while you insult the good name of sewergators.
> Apologize immediately, you vermin.
Maw aussie. On your knees and make with the "I'm saurian's".
Barbara "alt.folklore.gator'd-community" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | If you put things in numbered lists, people sometimes
bmik...@best.com | believe that they are correct. - Drew Lawson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
View a random urban legend --> http://www.snopes.com/cgi/randomul.cgi
Stephan Zielinski
jxle...@myriad.net (John W. Lemons III) writes:
> All I can so is my kill file for this group is ever growing ...
Please consider adding szie...@pbi.net, szie...@well.com, and
Stephan Zielinski to your killfile. (You should probably cut and
paste the names and addresses-- my name is notoriously difficult for
non-Slavic folks to spell.)
If you require a specific abusive post to merit proceeding with the
amendment, please let me know. For quicker service, specify a racial
group to insult, a profession to denigrate, a political stance to
ridicule, and one or more personal flaws to mock.
For your convenience in composing a counterflame, here is my own
personal flame profile:
Polish / Southeastern USAen Subsistence Farmer
UNIX System Administrator
Pro-gun Democrat
Large nose, receding hairline, pot belly, and cigarette addiction
Thank you for your time.
--
Stephan Zielinski
F Andrew McMichael
John W. Lemons III (jxle...@myriad.net) wrote:
: I'm beginning to wonder if this group is full of jerks like this...
It is. Go away.
Andrew C. E. Reid
In article <5i366r$d...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) wrote:
>"Supercooled" normally means "thermodynamically unstable". Glass is
>quite stable. To be technical, glass is a solid with the properties
>of a glassy solid.
>
Not that I imagine anyone's reading this thread anymore, but
you misplet "metastable". Nit-picky, to be sure, but
thermodynamically metastable states are stable with respect
to small fluctuations, but do not represent thermodynamic
equilibrium, that is, they do not minimize the free energy
of the system. Unstable states are states which have
zero or negative restoring forces with respect to
perturbations.
Glass is metastable. So is diamond. Metastable systems
generally do not have infinite lifetimes, and tend towards
true equilibrium, but the time constants involved can be many
orders of magnitude larger than the age of the solar system.
And, just because the AFU archive (at
http://www.urbanlegends.com) is down, and it hasn't come up
once in the seventy-four posts I read, I will repeat (from my
fallible memory) an item that's mentioned there which is the
best debunking of the "supercooled liquid" terminology I've
ever seen, namely that disordered solid glass can be obtained by
some kind of sputtering and/or vapour-deposition process in
which the liquid phase is never present.
Andrew "Went away for the weekend and missed round one..." Reid
Rose Marie Holt
In article <5i8im9$s...@idiom.com>, j...@idiom.com (Michael Craft) wrote:
>
> All over the Bay Area are window panes as you describe that were
> installed in the 1920's, for example. Was glass making really that
> shoddy in the 1920's? How come nearly every old house has mixmatched
> panes, some clear, some a little wavy, and some rather distorted, in
> a random pattern, as if contractors were incapable of telling the
> difference, or was this simply a style of the times?
Perhaps they were made in the 60's
"Wow, man, dig the waves!"
jon murray
C. Christopher Hart wrote:
>
> Glass DOES flow. It is a documented fact that it does. I have known this
> information since freshman science. It is a solid which, over time, sags
> and melts, shifting with gravity. Just part of a little law called
> entropy, folks. Now, lets get back to crocodiles in the sewers or Jamie
> Lee Curtis' real gender, shall we?
If this is a troll, it's a particularly tasteless one. If not - GET A
FUCKING CLUE!
***********************************************************
My address has been spam-protected. It's 'netconnect' & I live in
Australia.