Waterwheel importance in human history, especially Roman Empire
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <6ggrnt$uhq$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
> --- quoting in parts CITY, D. Macaulay, p20, p33, p37-41 ---
>
> When the stone could not be sawed, a row of holes was drilled where it
> was to be divided. Wooden stakes were then jammed into the holes. When
> water was poured over the stakes, they swelled, splitting the stone
> along the line of holes.
Drills have always fascinated me. Drill bits and hand drills. How far
back do they go in history? What were the drill bits used by the
ancient Greeks and Romans made of? Were they brass or bronze or steel?
How easy would it be to design a water wheel to be a "gigantic big
drill"? A waterwheel that is an ancient automatic drill would come in
useful to the ancients. Pretty easy to build, I would think. Are drill
bits often found in archaeology sites?
Frank Martin
Is'nt the Archimedian Screw water raising device (known & used in
antiquity) a very similar idea..? It wasn't used in a vertical position
but at roughly at 45 degrees. One end was placed in the river and the
other at a trough leading to irrigation channels.
Pet
does ann archimedian screw operate vertically ?
I don't believe so.
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <35314C...@netspace.net.au>
Frank Martin <gen...@netspace.net.au> writes:
>
> Is'nt the Archimedian Screw water raising device (known & used in
> antiquity) a very similar idea..? It wasn't used in a vertical position
> but at roughly at 45 degrees. One end was placed in the river and the
> other at a trough leading to irrigation channels.
True, the Arc. screw is analogous to the drill bit. But the A. screw
was designed for water pump. And it seems that by looking at the water
pump screw that one smart enough as A would then invent the drill bit.
We would have to know the progress of metal fabrication technology of
A's time. I believe the history of metals is key to the age of the
Hittites somewhere in Babylonia or Assyria where iron was first
fabricated.
Can someone refresh me on the history of metal making, the brass,
bronze and iron ages with dates and places? My history on this is
rusty.
I suppose a better analogy than the water pump screw is the actual
nail-screw itself. When in history do we see the first screws, and
concomitant screwdriver?
Are drill bits fluted, machine fluted and cut as they are rotated? Or
are they molded and then finished-grinded down sharp.
I come to understand that when historians speak of drills in the
ancient world that they are probably talking of the simple chisel. Like
a miner who drills to place his dynamite is really chiselling a hole
into rock. So the history of drill bits probably extends into the
history of the chisel.
These histories are very very important for the overall history of
technology and all of human history. And if history is all
superdeterminism, these histories are essential. That is, we would
never have gone to the moon by now if the drill bit had not been
invented on the year that it was invented.
*The* Didaskalos
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote to
and soc.history:
== > Is'nt the Archimedian Screw water raising device (known & used in
==
== True, the Arc. screw is analogous to the drill bit.
I'd say the Archimedes screw augurs well for the future.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Ye shall know the truth -- *The* Didaskalos
http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/village/1360
http://www.glinn.com/pink
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
*The* Didaskalos
==
== True, the Arc. screw is analogous to the drill bit.
So. It wasn't sexual harassment those army drill instructors were
engaged in afterall. Just teaching those recruits the Archimedes screw
as part of the drill bit.
Matt Silberstein
In sci.archaeology thedid...@TAKEMEOUTTOTHEBALLGAMEusa.net (*The*
Didaskalos) wrote:
>Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote to
>and soc.history:
>
>== > Is'nt the Archimedian Screw water raising device (known & used in
>==
>== True, the Arc. screw is analogous to the drill bit.
>
>I'd say the Archimedes screw augurs well for the future.
Did you have a point to this? The hole discussion is blinding: I saw
dust when I read it.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
I can't think for you,
it is you who must decide
If Judas Iscariot,
had God on his side
By RZ (from memory)
Frank Martin
*The* Didaskalos wrote:
>
> Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote to
> and soc.history:
>
> ==
>
> engaged in afterall. Just teaching those recruits the Archimedes screw
> as part of the drill bit.
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
> Ye shall know the truth -- *The* Didaskalos
>
> http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/village/1360
> http://www.glinn.com/pink
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><>
Frank Martin
Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
> In sci.archaeology thedid...@TAKEMEOUTTOTHEBALLGAMEusa.net (*The*
>
> >Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote to
> >and soc.history:
> >
> >== True, the Arc. screw is analogous to the drill bit.
> >
>
> Did you have a point to this? The hole discussion is blinding: I saw
> dust when I read it.
>
> Matt Silberstein
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> I can't think for you,
> it is you who must decide
> If Judas Iscariot,
> had God on his side
>
> By RZ (from memory)
Shaduf, also a water-raising device. This was around long before
Archimedes and my question is:
Since water has still to be raised the 2 or so meters from the river
what is the thermodynamic advantage of using it..?
Wouldn't a bucket on the end of a rope be just as good..?
John Little
On 14 Apr 1998 19:14:23 GMT, Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu
(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>In article <35314C...@netspace.net.au>
>Frank Martin <gen...@netspace.net.au> writes:
>
>>
>> Is'nt the Archimedian Screw water raising device (known & used in
>> antiquity) a very similar idea..? It wasn't used in a vertical position
>> but at roughly at 45 degrees. One end was placed in the river and the
>> other at a trough leading to irrigation channels.
The Archimedean screw is a red herring, as it is a pump worked by
hand. It is tilted to 45 degrees so that water is trapped in each
thread of the screw. In principle it could be used in reverse as a
form of water-driven motor, but conventional waterwheels are more
effective. In antiquity, the aquaduct was the best way of providing
water at a height, except in flat country.
The waterwheel can be used to raise water, but it was ineffective
until efficient pumps were developed in about 1650 A.D. Such a system
was built in Westbourne, West Sussex, to pump water to Stansted House
nearby. It was later converted to use a gas engine, and the building
with chimney still exists.
John Little
Hampshire, England.
Wayne B. Hewitt
>I was going to ask the next intelligent respondent about the Egyptian
>Shaduf, also a water-raising device. This was around long before
>Archimedes and my question is:
>Since water has still to be raised the 2 or so meters from the river
>what is the thermodynamic advantage of using it..?
>Wouldn't a bucket on the end of a rope be just as good..?
The 'Shaduf' was IIRC introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos invaders. The
advantage is simply BALANCE, and the facts that one pulls down, not up.
Also the height of the arm allows the water bucket to be more easily swung
from river to field and back.
--
Barbarossa ;^{>
Encinitas, California
X-Face by "Saving Face" <http://www.santafe.edu/~smfr/utils.html>
*The* Didaskalos
litt...@globalnet.co.uk (John Little) wrote to and soc.history:
== The Archimedean screw is a red herring, as it is a pump worked by
== hand. It is tilted to 45 degrees so that water is trapped in each
== thread of the screw. In principle it could be used in reverse as a
== form of water-driven motor, but conventional waterwheels are more
== effective. In antiquity, the aquaduct was the best way of providing
== water at a height, except in flat country.
==
The AS must have been a rather poor device in practice. One can
imagine the leakage would have been significant, especially as the
parts wore, causing significant flow back down the apparatus. That
could be overcome by turning at an ever faster rate, but that would
greatly increase the physical effort required.
Ed Price
*The* Didaskalos wrote:
> litt...@globalnet.co.uk (John Little) wrote to and soc.history:
> == The Archimedean screw is a red herring, as it is a pump worked by
> == hand. It is tilted to 45 degrees so that water is trapped in each
> == thread of the screw.
> imagine the leakage would have been significant, especially as the
> parts wore, causing significant flow back down the apparatus. That
> could be overcome by turning at an ever faster rate, but that would
> greatly increase the physical effort required.
I think that you are misunderstanding the design of the AS. You are
describing a screw, or fluted vane, working within a tube or trough. You
are thinking of a sliding interface which must be sealed to stop
leakage.
The AS can be made very simply from a cylinder in which ONE continuous
flute is cut. As the cylinder is rotated, the "rear wall" of the flute
rises behind the water, causing the water to roll away from it. There is
no leakage as there are no seams. The only effort expended, beyond the
lifting of the water and the frictional losses in the bearings, would be
very minor losses due to viscosity and turbulence.
The above design is easily realizable with ancient technology. I think
it would have been ideally suited to a location which had continuous
energy input, like a windmill.
I just thought of another AS design, though it would be tougher with
ancient technology. Take a hollow tube (like a hose), and wrap it in a
helix about a central shaft. Obviously, it's a lot easier to cut a flute
in a log than to construct a hose or long pipe.
M.C.Harrison
*The* Didaskalos wrote:
>
> == form of water-driven motor, but conventional waterwheels are more
> == effective. In antiquity, the aquaduct was the best way of providing
> == water at a height, except in flat country.
> imagine the leakage would have been significant, especially as the
> parts wore, causing significant flow back down the apparatus. That
> could be overcome by turning at an ever faster rate, but that would
> greatly increase the physical effort required.
Compared with what? Carrying buckets about?
The design for water-lifting is quite neat, you have a waterwheel
sitting in the stream, which turns due to water pressure. You run the
axle of this water wheel to a screw which when turning lifts the water
up the tube and deposits it into the aquaduct. From here, water will
flow downhill into your city/fields. Unattended, if you like. No sweat.
The first designs for water craft were oxen powered. You have something
similar, i.e. a water-wheel sitting in the water, on either side of the
craft. Then, you have another wheel inside the craft on the same axle.
You load your oxen into the wheel and whip them to go forwards up the
wheel, turning it and the waterwheels which then propel the craft
upstream. Going down stream you can let the oxen have a rest.
*The* Didaskalos
Ed Price <edp...@pacbell.net> wrote to and soc.history:
== The AS can be made very simply from a cylinder in which ONE continuous
== flute is cut. As the cylinder is rotated, the "rear wall" of the flute
== rises behind the water, causing the water to roll away from it. There is
== no leakage as there are no seams. The only effort expended, beyond the
== lifting of the water and the frictional losses in the bearings, would be
== very minor losses due to viscosity and turbulence.
==
== The above design is easily realizable with ancient technology. I think
== it would have been ideally suited to a location which had continuous
== energy input, like a windmill.
Rather like an "infinitesimal" water cup. Surprising Arch didn't
invent Newton's calculus. :)
I mean the thought process for this implementation could have been
from a starting point of water cups or jugs on a rope to trying to
make a continuous flow -- making the jugs smaller and small while
adding more and more of them leads to what you describe, if the
inventor gets that "aha!" and sees it.
As the "flute" turns up, fluid sticking to it through viscosity would
fall back, and turbulent flow splashing out of the flute would fall
back, as you say.
Another implementation would be to replace the flute by a hose wound
as a loose helical coil around some sort of rotary frame. I don't know
if they had the technology or materials to make a decent hose. (I do
this now when reeling up the garden hose and having to turn the coil
if I want to get all the water out.)
==
== I just thought of another AS design, though it would be tougher with
== ancient technology. Take a hollow tube (like a hose), and wrap it in a
== helix about a central shaft. Obviously, it's a lot easier to cut a flute
== in a log than to construct a hose or long pipe.
Oops, I see you already have thought of the hose, but I'll leave my
paragraph on it in here just to demonstrate that it's a reasonable
implementation that many people would have thought of.
Whether flute or hose, I think they'd still be very inefficient even
without leakage in the sense that rather little water is transferred
for the size of the apparatus. Without means to mass produce cheap
hose, I don't think that would have been considered.
joshua geller
thedid...@TAKEMEOUTTOTHEBALLGAMEusa.net (*The* Didaskalos) writes:
> Ed Price <edp...@pacbell.net> wrote to and soc.history:
> == The AS can be made very simply from a cylinder in which ONE continuous
> == flute is cut. As the cylinder is rotated, the "rear wall" of the flute
> == rises behind the water, causing the water to roll away from it. There is
> == no leakage as there are no seams. The only effort expended, beyond the
> == lifting of the water and the frictional losses in the bearings, would be
> == very minor losses due to viscosity and turbulence.
> == The above design is easily realizable with ancient technology. I think
> == it would have been ideally suited to a location which had continuous
> == energy input, like a windmill.
> Rather like an "infinitesimal" water cup. Surprising Arch didn't
> invent Newton's calculus. :)
he didn't need it. if he had, he would have. that was the kind of guy
he was. he invented his own system of 'positional notation' (not
quite, but close) for the 'sand reckoner'.
but he didn't invent the archimedean screw.
best,
josh
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <6h779f$p58$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> But why the absence of drill bits in
> archaeological digs?
--- quoting someone from Univ Wisconsin ---
Actually not absent. The ancients typically used awls for drilling.
They
are not quite as neat or accurate as modern spiral drill bits, but are
very
simple to make, being basically very narrow blades with a long stem.
You
could rotate them by rubbing them between your hands, but a much more
effective way (which, I believe, is depicted in at least Egyptian art)
is
to use a bow with the string looped around the awl once to rotate it
and a
weight pressing down on top if it. In many ways, it would be similar
to
the brace-and-bit used in modern times.
--- end quote ---
Yes, I can accept that as a progression history of the drill bit. First
as the matchstick of the board with a wood stick that is rotated by a
string bow (a sophisticated device for prehistory and perhaps the most
sophisticated machine of prehistory) as seen in the movie QUEST FOR
FIRE only without the bow. This match stick for getting fire could be
called the ancestor of the modern drill bit. Then the next advance was
the awl as the writer above says is found in Archaeology Egyptian art.
Then, somewhere in the history the awl was fluted or as one poster
suggested that a flat ribbon of metal when spiraled can make a drill
bit.
A careful research of the history of the drill bit from the ancients
to present would be a excellent science project and would lend insight
to both history of technology and science. I would be keen on this
research because it or some like it may help to prove that the history
of humanity, biology, and technology is superdeterministic and not that
of Darwin Evolution. Too many coincidences imply superdeterminism, such
as the history of wheat and humanity.
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
In article <6hrece$ddd$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
[snip]
> A careful research of the history of the drill bit from the ancients
> to present would be a excellent science project and would lend insight
> to both history of technology and science.
Occasionally, I yearn to combine my professional work of engineering
with my personal interest in history. I suspect that by studying history
from a technical point of view, as well as a certian amount of method,
might give some insight into future engineering advances. It would be
interesting to track several advances like these small ones (drill bits,
pencils, moveable type) with "larger" advances like steam engines,
coal power, etc. to see if there is a leader, laggart, effect. Do advances
wait for the creation of good tools, or do good tools get developed
to serve advances. I wonder if I could interest a company in hiring
me after I got a Masters of Arts in History to track the companies
individual advances as a function of other factors such as computing
power, price of oil, etc. I wonder if companies would pay a consultant
to review from a technical/historical view their success and failure
at contract bidding. I wonder what I would call myself. Historical
engineer? Technical historian?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Everett M. Greene
James Burke is a name that comes to mind.
John Harper
In article <6i2dtq$49$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com writes:
> Occasionally, I yearn to combine my professional work of engineering
> with my personal interest in history.
Occasionally a company commissions a history of itself, often for its
centenary. I recall one from the Herbert machine tool firm which had
an intriguing section on making good lathes at the start of the
Industrial Revolution. You begin by hand with iron bars and a file.
You know you have got 3 bars straight when you can fit any one against
any other with no air-gaps visible anywhere along their length. You now
use 2 of them as slide bars for your lathe. You now file a screw thread
on the 3rd bar and use it as feed screw in a screw-cutting lathe you
have designed to make a more accurate screw thread than its own feed
screw. After several times round the obvious loop you have something
that's fit to sell.
John Harper, School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences,
Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand
e-mail john....@vuw.ac.nz phone (+64)(4)471 5341 fax (+64)(4)495 5045
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
In article <19980428.7...@mojaveg.ridgecrest.ca.us>#1/1,
moj...@ridgecrest.ca.us (Everett M. Greene) wrote:
>
> In article <6i2dtq$49$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
writes:
> > Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > A careful research of the history of the drill bit from the ancients
> > > to present would be a excellent science project and would lend insight
> > > to both history of technology and science.
> > [snip]
> >
> > from a technical point of view, as well as a certian amount of method,
> > might give some insight into future engineering advances. It would be
> > interesting to track several advances like these small ones (drill bits,
> > pencils, moveable type) with "larger" advances like steam engines,
> > coal power, etc. to see if there is a leader, laggart, effect. Do
advances
> > wait for the creation of good tools, or do good tools get developed
> > to serve advances. I wonder if I could interest a company in hiring
> > me after I got a Masters of Arts in History to track the companies
> > individual advances as a function of other factors such as computing
> > power, price of oil, etc. I wonder if companies would pay a consultant
> > to review from a technical/historical view their success and failure
> > at contract bidding. I wonder what I would call myself. Historical
> > engineer? Technical historian?
>
> James Burke is a name that comes to mind.
>
Yup. I was lucky enough in college to take a series of courses
which satisfied part of my liberal arts requirement which was called
"history of science and technology". I got to read some of Burkes stuff
there. All good stuff, but not quite what I imagine. They are all
"just" classic historians. They read and document. I think more in
terms of the guys who "rebuild" old machines to allow direct comparison
between them, as well as a deeper understanding of just what was
being accomplished. There is something to be learned from rebuilding
the Wright Flier and actually flying it (among them, just how good
a pilot they must have been, or at least LUCKY ones). Also, rerunning
old experiments with modern equipment to compare the results.
Understanding the limitations of old data sheds more light on the
accomplishments of those who had to work with it.
I know one "historical" effort I'ld like to rerun with some
modern equipment. I'ld like to fly a man safely to the moon and
return him back again.
joshua geller
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com writes:
> I know one "historical" effort I'ld like to rerun with some
> modern equipment. I'ld like to fly a man safely to the moon and
> return him back again.
but the way they did it was so uninteresting.
now, floating an airship to 120,000 feet and then firing rockets and
sending it into orbit (and then using low thrust engines to get
wherever, or perhaps a solar sail) would be more my style. it would
have to be a very large airship; useful lift goes down in direct
proportion to how high your ceiling is.
followups redirected to sci.engr. I don't really think that the
ancients had stratospheric airships, let alone space travel. though
the 'face on mars' stuff is interesting. could we have some clearer
pictures please?
my best,
josh
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <6i7j92$ue6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com writes:
> I think more in
> terms of the guys who "rebuild" old machines to allow direct comparison
> between them, as well as a deeper understanding of just what was
> being accomplished. There is something to be learned from rebuilding
> the Wright Flier and actually flying it (among them, just how good
> a pilot they must have been, or at least LUCKY ones). Also, rerunning
> old experiments with modern equipment to compare the results.
> Understanding the limitations of old data sheds more light on the
> accomplishments of those who had to work with it.
I concur. As an example, Archimedes of ancient Greek is not given
credit for the burning mirrors of Roman Marcellus attack, simply
because most writers are too lazy or unable to experiment and find out
if accurate. There was a experimenter Buffon? who actually performed
the experiment and concluded that it was highly likely that the burning
mirrors happened.
But worse yet, on the same Archimedes, is the literature both popular
and scientific that never bothers, too lazy to repeat and find out for
oneself how it really goes. What I am talking about is the measurement
for whether the crown was mixed with silver and not pure gold. Most all
of the literature on this famous Archimedes experiment has this
historical incident wrong and they have the underlying science wrong.
What happened was that Archimedes needed only a balancing beam, a
simple string connected to a beam which could hold pure-gold on one
side and the crown on the other. The pure-gold need not weigh the same
as the crown, just that it is pure gold-- the only fact you had to be
sure of. Wait a few seconds for the beam to stabilize and stop
swinging, and it was alright if the beam when balanced was tilted. A
tilted beam was alright, and then dunk the entire apparatus into a
bathtub being careful not to disturb its stabilization. If the beam
moves from its pre-dunking stable position means that the crown was not
pure gold. Simple as that, but nearly all the literature written about
this famous experiment gets the methodology wrong or the
science-behind-it wrong or both wrong and the literature is one vast
embarrassement on this topic.
And this experiment is a nice one to perform in High School.
Arnold The Paperboy
> Most all
> of the literature on this famous Archimedes experiment has this
>historical incident wrong and they have the underlying science wrong.
>What happened was that Archimedes needed only a balancing beam
1) How do you know it is wrong? Do you know which experiment he
actually did?
2) Why is the underlying science wrong?
You post says in effect "He could have done it a different way, therefore
he did it wrong". Yes, he could have used a balance beam or he could have
immersed it in water. That does not make one method "wrong" or the other
method "right".
Again - how do we know the literature is wrong about which experiment he
did,
and what is wrong with the underlying science in the immersion case?
Everett M. Greene
> terms of the guys who "rebuild" old machines to allow direct comparison
> between them, as well as a deeper understanding of just what was
> being accomplished. There is something to be learned from rebuilding
> the Wright Flier and actually flying it (among them, just how good
> a pilot they must have been, or at least LUCKY ones).
I believe you are quite correct about the lucky thing. There's a
saying about not hoping for some luck, require it.
> Also, rerunning
> old experiments with modern equipment to compare the results.
I recall rerunning old experiments in physics lab and demonstrating
such thing as convservation of more than 100% of momentum.
> Understanding the limitations of old data sheds more light on the
> accomplishments of those who had to work with it.
Understanding the limitations of new data is interesting also.
> I know one "historical" effort I'ld like to rerun with some
> modern equipment. I'ld like to fly a man safely to the moon and
> return him back again.
Someone may well run this experiment for you.
Archimedes Plutonium
In article <19980501.7...@mojaveg.ridgecrest.ca.us>
moj...@ridgecrest.ca.us (Everett M. Greene) writes:
> > Also, rerunning
> > old experiments with modern equipment to compare the results.
>
> I recall rerunning old experiments in physics lab and demonstrating
> such thing as convservation of more than 100% of momentum.
>
> > Understanding the limitations of old data sheds more light on the
> > accomplishments of those who had to work with it.
>
> Understanding the limitations of new data is interesting also.
This reminds me of the hoopla experiment a few years ago involving
George Smoot with the so-called fluctuations in the cosmic microwave
background radiation CMBR. They claimed it was fluctuations.
I claimed that they had merely reached the limits of precision of
their measuring devices. And that in the future, say in the 22nd
century when they have far more precise measuring apparatus, and repeat
the measurement of the microwave CMBR, that they will find no
fluctuations at the range of where they found them in the 20th century.
The Smoot so-called fluctuations are merely the limits of precision of
the apparatus. Smoot tells more about the limitations of his machinery,
than any true science or truth about the universe.
Ed Price
John Harper wrote:
> In article <6i2dtq$49$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com writes:
> centenary. I recall one from the Herbert machine tool firm which had
> an intriguing section on making good lathes at the start of the
> Industrial Revolution. You begin by hand with iron bars and a file.
> You know you have got 3 bars straight when you can fit any one against
> any other with no air-gaps visible anywhere along their length. You now
> use 2 of them as slide bars for your lathe. You now file a screw thread
> on the 3rd bar and use it as feed screw in a screw-cutting lathe you
> have designed to make a more accurate screw thread than its own feed
> screw. After several times round the obvious loop you have something
> that's fit to sell.
Hmmmm John, that doesn't sound right. Each pass yields a HIGHER accuracy
cut?! Could you explain that a bit more?
Wayne B. Hewitt
It's not just a 'pass' but an iteration of the whole process: the first
screw is mostly hand-made. That screw is used to feed the cutter for the
next screw, which is of closer tolerance, and so on.
--
_B_a_r_b_a_r_o_s_s_a_ ;^{>
Arnold the paper boy
In a very recent post (2 May 1998) to sci.math and sci.physics,
Archimedes Plutonium declares himself the "King Of Physics".
If you don't believe me, go check for yourself! It's in the second
paragraph!
This astonishing person also claims that Britain is a peninsula.
He claims that the "other" Archimedes of ancient times did the famous
"Density of a gold alloy crown" experiment in the *wrong* way, and that
the science behind that experiment was "bad".
Cheers.
Arnold the paper boy
Memo to Archimedes Plutonium:
Despite your assertion to a post in sci.geo.geology of 4-17-98
BRITAIN IS NOT A PENINSULA!!!!
IN HISTORICAL TIMES, BRITAIN NEVER WAS A PENINSULA!
BRITAIN IS NOT A PENINSULA!!!!
WHY DO FAIL TO ACCEPT THIS? HOW DOES THIS IMMENSE
LIE ADVANCE YOUR STANDING?
*The* Didaskalos
"Arnold the paper boy" <sa...@dundas.com> wrote to and soc.history:
== Memo to Archimedes Plutonium:
==
== Despite your assertion to a post in sci.geo.geology of 4-17-98
==
== BRITAIN IS NOT A PENINSULA!!!!
== IN HISTORICAL TIMES, BRITAIN NEVER WAS A PENINSULA!
== BRITAIN IS NOT A PENINSULA!!!!
==
== WHY DO FAIL TO ACCEPT THIS? HOW DOES THIS IMMENSE
== LIE ADVANCE YOUR STANDING?
I think he views Britain as a peninsula appended to the continent of
Scotland (or perhaps the continent of Cornwall).
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Ye shall know the truth -- *The* Didaskalos
http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/village/1360
(Visit my new on-line bookstore, which operates in
association with Amazon.com -- earth's biggest bookstore)
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Frank Martin
Arnold the paper boy wrote:
>
> Memo to Archimedes Plutonium:
>
> Despite your assertion to a post in sci.geo.geology of 4-17-98
>
>
I suppose you will insist that the world is round..?
Arnold the paper boy
I care not whether the world is round.
I only care about bashing Archimedes Plutonium
until the end of time. I am 23 years old. I have
four grandparents still alive, over 80. I plan to live
to a ripe old age, following A.P. around the 'net for
the rest of my living days, posting his errors repeatedly
for all time, never ceasing, bashing and flaming and
correcting him until one of us dies.
Cheers!
A the P B.
Frank Martin
Arnold the paper boy wrote:
>
very edge of the earth.
There are too many PUSSIES on the net.
robert place
*The* Didaskalos wrote:
>
> "Arnold the paper boy" <sa...@dundas.com> wrote to and soc.history:
>
> == Memo to Archimedes Plutonium:
> ==
> ==
> == BRITAIN IS NOT A PENINSULA!!!!
> == IN HISTORICAL TIMES, BRITAIN NEVER WAS A PENINSULA!
> == BRITAIN IS NOT A PENINSULA!!!!
> ==
> == WHY DO FAIL TO ACCEPT THIS? HOW DOES THIS IMMENSE
> == LIE ADVANCE YOUR STANDING?
>
> I think he views Britain as a peninsula appended to the continent of
> Scotland (or perhaps the continent of Cornwall).
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
> Ye shall know the truth -- *The* Didaskalos
>
> http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/village/1360
> (Visit my new on-line bookstore, which operates in
> association with Amazon.com -- earth's biggest bookstore)
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><>
But Britain was a peninsula during the last ice age because of sea
and ocean levels.
Ed Price
Arnold the paper boy wrote:
>
> I care not whether the world is round.
>
> I only care about bashing Archimedes Plutonium
> until the end of time. I am 23 years old. I have
> four grandparents still alive, over 80. I plan to live
> to a ripe old age, following A.P. around the 'net for
> the rest of my living days, posting his errors repeatedly
> for all time, never ceasing, bashing and flaming and
> correcting him until one of us dies.
>
> Cheers!
>
> A the P B.
Well, Arnold, at least you have a goal in life. Personal history
suggests that, once you do begin to annoy the fabulous Arky, you will
find yourself targeted by silly, forged posts. Then, serious mail
bombing starts, with REALLY BIG emails flowing into your address, and to
others, under the imprimature of info requested by you. Arky lives in a
hall of mirrors; buy your hammers wholesale.
Michael McNeil
robert place <eca...@mymail.emcyber.com> writes:
>*The* Didaskalos wrote:
[snip nested quotes]
>>I think he views Britain as a peninsula appended to the continent of
>>Scotland (or perhaps the continent of Cornwall).
>But Britain was a peninsula during the last ice age because of sea
>and ocean levels.
Not exactly, or not to the degree that one might think (with Britain
joined to Europe only at the English Channel). Much of the North Sea is
less than 100 meters deep, and was above sea level during the ice age.
The Scandinavian Ice Sheet extended without pause from Denmark and Norway
across the North Sea to Britain, and from there to Ireland. Moreover, sea
ice locked Britain to the Norwegian Sea, thence to the Arctic Ocean to the
north, and to the Icelandic and Greenland ice sheets to the west. There
was a slight dip in the northward extent of the continental ice sheet east
of Scotland. To that extent, Britain was a peninsula during the ice age.
--
Michael McNeil
memc...@netcom.com
Reference
"Geochronology: The Interpretation and Dating of the Geologic Record:
Pleistocene Epoch", _Encyclopaedia_Britannica_, 1997.
*The* Didaskalos
memc...@netcom.com (Michael McNeil) wrote to and soc.history:
== robert place <eca...@mymail.emcyber.com> writes:
==
== >*The* Didaskalos wrote:
== [snip nested quotes]
== >>I think he views Britain as a peninsula appended to the continent of
== >>Scotland (or perhaps the continent of Cornwall).
==
== >But Britain was a peninsula during the last ice age because of sea
== >and ocean levels.
==
A shocking example of incontinence.