combination spanner: drop forged steel vs. chrome vanadium

[Emanuel Berg]

Because the combination spanner seems to be an
integral part of the game I spent some time
examining my tools.

I have two almost complete sets despite never
having bought a set.

If we focus on the 10 mm one, both versions
have a width of 5 mm. One is 15 mm in length,
the other 12.3 mm. And the space that holds the
nut is equally 10 mm on both!

The difference in length makes for a somewhat
different angle.

In a shop size doesn't really matter but it
might be a factor for small toolboxes to bring
into the wild (or into thin air). On the flip
side, the short one should carry somewhat less
power as the lever is shorter!

The short one is made in Taiwan, the long in
China. So I suppose the short one is older
since nowadays everything seems to be built in
mainland China.

Now is where it gets interesting: the short one
is made of drop forged steel, and the long one:
chrome vanadium!

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic
- so far: 58 Blogomatic articles -

[John B.]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 07:35:11 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>Because the combination spanner seems to be an
>integral part of the game I spent some time
>examining my tools.
>
>I have two almost complete sets despite never
>having bought a set.

I've got a friend who has a small business repairing outboard motors
at a large marina in Phuket, Thailand. And when you are always out and
about in the boat business you seem to collect things. He is also a
great fan of tool boards and has about half of one wall in his shop
covered by a gigantic "tool Board". The other day I asked him about
the 5 sets of combination wrenches - 2 in inch and 3 in metric sizes.
Jokingly I asked him if one set went with Mercury engines and one with
Honda's and maybe one for old Sea Gull motors. He says, "Nah, I just
grab whatever is the closest :-)

>
>If we focus on the 10 mm one, both versions
>have a width of 5 mm. One is 15 mm in length,
>the other 12.3 mm. And the space that holds the
>nut is equally 10 mm on both!
>
>The difference in length makes for a somewhat
>different angle.
>
>In a shop size doesn't really matter but it
>might be a factor for small toolboxes to bring
>into the wild (or into thin air). On the flip
>side, the short one should carry somewhat less
>power as the lever is shorter!
>
>The short one is made in Taiwan, the long in
>China. So I suppose the short one is older
>since nowadays everything seems to be built in
>mainland China.
>
>Now is where it gets interesting: the short one
>is made of drop forged steel, and the long one:
>chrome vanadium!

I've got a couple of bikes with hex nuts or bolts on the fender stays
and carry a single wrench on these bikes. I usually cut an existing
wrench down and drill holes in the handle to make it a bit lighter and
I notice that the better China Main Land made wrenches are made of
some pretty tough stuff. At least in the "better" grades.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. wrote:

> I've got a friend who has a small business
> repairing outboard motors at a large marina
> in Phuket, Thailand. And when you are always
> out and about in the boat business you seem
> to collect things.

It is the same for me even tho I don't do
boats! When you are at it with some activity
you notice suddenly all the new things.
When I did Karate I was in the dojo hundreds of
times without thinking about the screws in the
locker room, which had Torx heads. But after
doing bikes like two weeks that was the first
thing I saw when I entered the room! This goes
for tools and building material (wood) as well.
Some times it is impossible to resist having
long fingers because you strongly suspect
otherwise it'll just go to waste. It is also
educational as you learn how to clean and
repair stuff :)

Speaking of boats, I'm thinking of building
a raft with five 200 liter barrels in the
middle, and then two cantilevers of five 50
liter barrels each. But I think ropes will do
instead of mechanics - perhaps some 5 mm
cord...

> I've got a couple of bikes with hex nuts or
> bolts on the fender stays and carry a single
> wrench on these bikes. I usually cut an
> existing wrench down and drill holes in the
> handle to make it a bit lighter and I notice
> that the better China Main Land made wrenches
> are made of some pretty tough stuff. At least
> in the "better" grades.

Yeah, once upon a time everything was made in
England, then then rest of Europe, USA, then
Japan, Taiwan, now PR China, tomorrow India
perhaps... The outsourcing was perhaps due to
cheeper labor at some point but as for quality
Chinese stuff hasn't let me down so far.
On the other hand my father has a Chinese wife
and some of the stuff I get from her is broke
in several places even before I start using it!
But the stuff from China I buy in Sweden hasn't
failed so far. This isn't to say the old Europe
stuff wasn't awesome, proof of which is some of
the 60s bikes and tools are still around
working perfectly - and some stuff even older,
for example I repaired a mower the other day -
or actually it wasn't broke, it was just filled
with age-old grass :)

[John B.]

That isn't a boat, that is a barge :-)

If you mean five barrels in a row then that is about 14 feet, or a
little over 4 metre's. I would suggest a catamaran - two lengths of 5
containers in parallel.

I've build a few boats as well as a number of "floats" or whatever you
call them supported by barrels and my comments are:

It will be heavier than a simple plywood boat but a bit easier to
build. Although it will likely be quite a lot cheaper. It will not
necessarily be more seaworthy. It will be very slow and without a crew
probably impossible to row or paddle.

If you build it as usually done, a grid of timber hold the containers
in place and their normal buoyancy keeps them in place up against the
underside of the deck. Usually they are tied in place with rope or
perhaps some sort of plastic strapping, which is not a major
structural part of the structure. Just a retainer, so to speak.

Usually one of more containers will have a leak and occasionally a
container may get heavy enough to sink, thus the retaining ropes.

Unless the framework and deck are very stiff, thus heavy, it will not
be a flat, solid, deck the deck will flex, to some extent, as a wave
passes under the hull(s).

Comments: It will likely be more seaworthy than the Vasa(Wasa?). It
certainly does not fit in with historical vessels in the region, and
if you are going Viking it is going to take two or three months to
reach England, or France :-)


>II've got a couple of bikes with hex nuts or

>> bolts on the fender stays and carry a single
>> wrench on these bikes. I usually cut an
>> existing wrench down and drill holes in the
>> handle to make it a bit lighter and I notice
>> that the better China Main Land made wrenches
>> are made of some pretty tough stuff. At least
>> in the "better" grades.
>
>Yeah, once upon a time everything was made in
>England, then then rest of Europe, USA, then
>Japan, Taiwan, now PR China, tomorrow India
>perhaps... The outsourcing was perhaps due to
>cheeper labor at some point but as for quality
>Chinese stuff hasn't let me down so far.

From what I know it isn't just cheaper labor, although that gets all
the news coverage. My experience is that setting up the company,
taxes, government over sight, health and safety, medical and life
insurance coverage for the workers, materials (in many instances) are
all cheaper.

Years ago my company looked at setting up a subsidiary company in
Burma (Myanmar) I met with a Burmese lawyer (educated, and a member of
the bar, in England) and essentially to open a legal company I needed
to have a Burmese member of the Board and bring in US$ 10,000 and
lodge it in a Burmese bank, which became the Capitalization of the
company. Take a look into opening a company in Sweden, or the U.S. for
that matter.

As an aside, we decided not to establish a company as essentially the
kyat was valueless although there was an illegal rate of exchange that
the local bank would change money at, so we would have been forced
into using black market money. At the time there was almost no basic
support industry - to get office furniture you hired a carpenter and
he came to your office and made it. And it was becoming more and more
evident of just how awful the government really was. We decided that
it just wasn't worth the effort.

>On the other hand my father has a Chinese wife
>and some of the stuff I get from her is broke
>in several places even before I start using it!
>But the stuff from China I buy in Sweden hasn't
>failed so far. This isn't to say the old Europe
>stuff wasn't awesome, proof of which is some of
>the 60s bikes and tools are still around
>working perfectly - and some stuff even older,
>for example I repaired a mower the other day -
>or actually it wasn't broke, it was just filled
>with age-old grass :)

Chinese stuff, in China, is just like any other country. There is the
good stuff and the bad stuff. A Flying Pidgin bicycle ( the company
had made 500 million units as of 2007) you could pass it on to your
descendents. Originally a single speed, some with a double top tube
for strength, a fully enclosed chain guard and made in a ladies model
also. But I believe that they have now been modernized although the
original models are still alive both in China and abroad, I've
frequently seen them in Singapore.

Allbaba has the old original, two top tube version for $45 - $65 each
in lots of 200.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. wrote:

> If you mean five barrels in a row then that
> is about 14 feet, or a little over 4 metre's.
> I would suggest a catamaran - two lengths of
> 5 containers in parallel.

OK, any suggestions what wood to use? The raft
part will be 3.5 meters square and then some
additional is required for a centerboard, mast,
possibly skeg, and so on.

> Comments: It will likely be more seaworthy
> than the Vasa(Wasa?). It certainly does not
> fit in with historical vessels in the region,
> and if you are going Viking it is going to
> take two or three months to reach England, or
> France :-)

So you know about all that.

Well, the Vikings (some 800-1100) had perfected
the craft for generations so obviously there is
no comparison. And they didn't use rafts, at
least not for their journeys to England
and France.

Vasa (or Wasa) was a royal warship (out of oak)
which sank in 1628, immediatly upon starting
the maiden voyage.

No, I got the print from this book so I suppose
it is Polynesian if any:

@book{det-stora-vågspelet,
author = {Alain Brun and Bengt Danielsson},
ISBN = 9177988515,
publisher = {Carlsson},
title = {Det stora vågspelet: Tahiti Nui-expeditionen},
year = {1994 (originally 1959)}

}

> to get office furniture you hired a carpenter
> and he came to your office and made it.

I wish it was like that here because that would
mean a lot of work :)

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/24/2016 3:38 AM, John B. wrote:
>
>
> Comments: It will likely be more seaworthy than the Vasa(Wasa?).

We saw the Vasa in its museum a few years ago. It's still one of the
most amazing museums we've ever visited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

maybe as a pedal wrench a CV ...otherwise bike torques are lower than CV specs.

https://goo.gl/UyZRlO

outstanding ! problem is finding one when needed. gotta keepum on the holder.

uneeda 10MM and 6MM

with a ball joint hex key set

and a propane torch.

[Emanuel Berg]

Today I continued my examination of this tool.

The closed end seems to always have 12 slots -
perhaps the 6 of the hex nut, times 2, so you
can position it more freely? What about times
3, even more freely? Likely the tool would just
rotate around the nut... Why not 6 slots?
I suspect this would only limit the flexibility
severely (cut it in half) while the grip
stability wouldn't increase all that much (?)

The open end has one strong part and one which
is smaller. If you rotate the thing, you can
alway pull the right way!

But this can be difficult in the dark or below
~9°C when every second you work with
a unclothed tool will cool down your hand.

Perhaps one should not overemphasize flipping
it the right way. I suspect this is more
important for adjustable spanners which might
brake if flipped the wrong way. Incidentally,
adjustable spanners are a virtual nightmare to
use in cold and darkness!

Also, the open end is tilted somewhat from the
handle. No idea why that is - ergonomics,
transfer of power ... ?

[Mark J.]

On 7/24/2016 3:44 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Today I continued my examination of this tool.
>
> The closed end seems to always have 12 slots -
> perhaps the 6 of the hex nut, times 2, so you
> can position it more freely?

Yes, to position more freely. This is not so much an issue with bikes
(though sometimes there also), but when working in enclosed spaces, e.g.
automobile engines, it may be possible only to turn a nut 30-40 degrees
at a time without the free end of the wrench being blocked by another
part of the engine. Those 12 "points" as they are called enable the
user to work in more constrained situations.

What about times
> 3, even more freely? Likely the tool would just
> rotate around the nut... Why not 6 slots?

So-called socket wrenches come in "6-point" and "12-point" varieties.
12-point sockets are easier to engage, and good for most general uses,
especially when working by feel or in the dark as you mention. 6-point
is stronger, for badly seized / stuck bolts, or for really tiny sizes,
where the 12-point may not have enough engagement with the bolt.

References:
https://www.amazon.com/Craftsman-Piece-Drive-Point-Socket/dp/B01BH90H5A/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1469400833&sr=8-2&keywords=6-point+socket+set

and

https://www.amazon.com/Craftsman-Piece-Drive-Point-Socket/dp/B01BH90HEQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1469400864&sr=8-2&keywords=12-point+socket+set

> I suspect this would only limit the flexibility
> severely (cut it in half) while the grip
> stability wouldn't increase all that much (?)
>
> The open end has one strong part and one which
> is smaller. If you rotate the thing, you can
> alway pull the right way!
>
> But this can be difficult in the dark or below
> ~9°C when every second you work with
> a unclothed tool will cool down your hand.

Yes, I used to use very thin gloves when using wrenches in the cold.

> Perhaps one should not overemphasize flipping
> it the right way. I suspect this is more
> important for adjustable spanners which might
> brake if flipped the wrong way. Incidentally,
> adjustable spanners are a virtual nightmare to
> use in cold and darkness!
>
> Also, the open end is tilted somewhat from the
> handle. No idea why that is - ergonomics,
> transfer of power ... ?

Same reason as the 12-point - for clearance. If one has multiple bolt
or nut heads arranged closely in the same plane, a non-angled wrench
could not turn (as) much.

Obligatory bike stuff: I did 207k on my three-year old carbon fiber
bike yesterday. Surely I am tempting fate, it will surely disintegrate
any day now, but it's so nice to ride! Or perhaps Trek really /does/
engineer in a safety margin, hard as that would be to believe. :)

Mark J.

[Emanuel Berg]

Mark J. wrote:

>> Today I continued my examination of this
>> tool. The closed end seems to always have 12
>> slots - perhaps the 6 of the hex nut, times
>> 2, so you can position it more freely?
>
> Yes, to position more freely. This is not so
> much an issue with bikes (though sometimes
> there also), but when working in enclosed
> spaces, e.g. automobile engines, it may be
> possible only to turn a nut 30-40 degrees at
> a time without the free end of the wrench
> being blocked by another part of the engine.
> Those 12 "points" as they are called enable
> the user to work in more
> constrained situations.

Right, then you want the "ratchet" or detent
mechanism so you don't need to get away and
reset the tool between pulls...

> So-called socket wrenches come in "6-point"
> and "12-point" varieties.

You mean the sockets do? Google shows me what
I thought was a rachet?

The sockets I've seen are 6 point and it makes
sense because the space required is the same no
matter how you rotate the socket, and as for
the handle it can be rotated freely, of course.

Why 12 point? So it'll be easier to get it
there in the first place?

[John B.]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 15:28:58 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. wrote:
>
>> If you mean five barrels in a row then that
>> is about 14 feet, or a little over 4 metre's.
>> I would suggest a catamaran - two lengths of
>> 5 containers in parallel.
>
>OK, any suggestions what wood to use? The raft
>part will be 3.5 meters square and then some
>additional is required for a centerboard, mast,
>possibly skeg, and so on.

Centerboard and mast? You expect to sail this thing?

As for wood, I have no idea what woods are available in Sweden but in
the U.S. I would take any soft wood that was the cheapest - assuming
things like no loose knots, fairly straight, etc.

My own feeling that as a boat this is not going to meet your
expectations, but for a moored fishing platform for fishing or
swimming it would be fine.

My suggestions would be to search "+free+boat+design+stitch and glue"
and check prices for materials for a design you like. FIRST.

For example see:
http://www.christinedemerchant.com/free-stitch-and-glue-boat-plans.html

or the many others.

>> Comments: It will likely be more seaworthy
>> than the Vasa(Wasa?). It certainly does not
>> fit in with historical vessels in the region,
>> and if you are going Viking it is going to
>> take two or three months to reach England, or
>> France :-)
>
>So you know about all that.

Well, I am/was a boat nut. My wife and I lived for large portions of
the time on a 40 ft. sail boat for about a 10m year period :-)

>Well, the Vikings (some 800-1100) had perfected
>the craft for generations so obviously there is
>no comparison. And they didn't use rafts, at
>least not for their journeys to England
>and France.

The Viking ships (using the term as a verb) were very well designed
and constructed for the period but were designed for a specific
function, Fast, Large Crew, relatively shallow draft, etc.

A "knorr" (Knorr, knarr?) was a very different type although using the
same type of construction. A shorter (slower) wider, deeper design for
cargo carrying with a small crew.

>Vasa (or Wasa) was a royal warship (out of oak)
>which sank in 1628, immediatly upon starting
>the maiden voyage.
>
>No, I got the print from this book so I suppose
>it is Polynesian if any:
>
> @book{det-stora-vågspelet,
> author = {Alain Brun and Bengt Danielsson},
> ISBN = 9177988515,
> publisher = {Carlsson},
> title = {Det stora vågspelet: Tahiti Nui-expeditionen},
> year = {1994 (originally 1959)}
> }
>

I found an English synopsis of the book and apparently they voyaged
from Tahiti to Chile, a distance of about 7,933 Km - in a straight
line - in approximately 7 months, or say 212 days. About 37 km. a day.
or 1.5 km/hr.... Normal marching speeds carrying a load is in the 3 -
3.5 MPH range, perhaps 5 - 6 km/hr.

This isn't an accurate figure as they wandered all over the place but
it is vindictive of both the speed and maneuverability of the "raft".

Another point is that the raft fell apart before they reached land :-)

>> to get office furniture you hired a carpenter
>> and he came to your office and made it.
>
>I wish it was like that here because that would
>mean a lot of work :)

But much lower pay :-)

If you look into it the Scandinavians had 100% employment in their
home countries. So why did they go Viking? :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Did you ever visit the Mary Rose Museum in England?
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Not yet. Should I put it on my list?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. wrote:

> Centerboard and mast? You expect to sail
> this thing?

I don't expect anything except that it'll be
interesting and fun to build. I think it will
work out fine in the water as long as I stick
to the plan but if it doesn't maybe I'll build
a second version learning from my mistakes :)

> I found an English synopsis of the book and
> apparently they voyaged from Tahiti to Chile,
> a distance of about 7,933 Km - in a straight
> line - in approximately 7 months, or say 212
> days. About 37 km. a day. or 1.5 km/hr....
> Normal marching speeds carrying a load is in
> the 3 - 3.5 MPH range, perhaps 5 - 6 km/hr.
>
> This isn't an accurate figure as they
> wandered all over the place but it is
> vindictive of both the speed and
> maneuverability of the "raft".

There were three ships (rafts with masts)
involved. One was from Tahiti to Chile.
This got caught in a huge storm and they were
rescued by a big ship, tho there was no real
panic when they abandoned the vessel which was
seaworthy at the time.

After this, in Chile, they built a new ship to
do the trip in reverse, basically the Kon-Tiki
voyage a decade later, and they aimed for
Tahiti in particular, not just any island.
The second ship was in design very close to the
first one.

However, it started to sink and after peerless
hardships they built a third raft, while
onboard the second!

On this, third raft, they crashed into some
Polynesian island and were rescued, only the
captain who had been out of it with pneumonia
half the trip hit his head and died in
the water.

If you are a boat nut you'll find it super
interesting, not the least because of all the
hilarious/horrific situations described by the
acting captain, because during all the
struggles the rest of the crew was either
mentally instable or hopeless landlubber, and
the patience he showed explaining things in the
face of extreme danger is amazing.

> If you look into it the Scandinavians had
> 100% employment in their home countries.
> So why did they go Viking? :-)

There were reasons of adventure, culture, and
religion, but if you're looking for an economic
analysis the popular one is there were big
families back then, however only the oldest son
got his father's land. So while he was happy
with the situation, his younger but very able
brothers were bent on conquest :)

[John B.]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:48:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski

<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 7/24/2016 11:56 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:37:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/24/2016 3:38 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Comments: It will likely be more seaworthy than the Vasa(Wasa?).
>>>
>>> We saw the Vasa in its museum a few years ago. It's still one of the
>>> most amazing museums we've ever visited.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)
>>
>> Did you ever visit the Mary Rose Museum in England?
>
>Not yet. Should I put it on my list?

It is probably the most extensive collection of commonly used objects
that exist from the mid 1500's in England.

I think if I were going to the U.K. I would plan a visit.

At one time I was interested in archery, particularly "long Bows" and
from the equipment salvaged with the Mary Rose there has been a very
large addition to the knowledge in that area as prior to the Mary Rose
no examples of long bows from the period of their greatest use
existed. Draw weight, for example, had been estimated to have been in
the 90 - 100 lb. range until bows with a pull weight of 100 - 185
lbs., at 30 inches, were found on the Mary Rose.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 21:13:02 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. wrote:
>
>> Centerboard and mast? You expect to sail
>> this thing?
>
>I don't expect anything except that it'll be
>interesting and fun to build. I think it will
>work out fine in the water as long as I stick
>to the plan but if it doesn't maybe I'll build
>a second version learning from my mistakes :)

I suggest that a much better method of learning is to learn from
other's mistakes, rather than one's own. A really competent engineer
when asked to design a thing-a-ma-jig will first search the literature
to discover all he can about previous designs, failures and uses.

Think of a guy designing a parachute. Learning from one own errors
might not be possible.

In fact, engineering is largely a study of failures and how to prevent
them from failing again. If a bridge falls down one does not slavishly
build another one exactly the same :-)

I suggest that adventures may be a little optimistic :-) although
religion may very well have entered into it as I have read references
that the expansion of Christianity northward might have influenced the
peoples there to immigrate, or at least in some instances.

Again, from what I have read, the basic reason for going Viking was an
effort to get valuables. But when they reached England and France the
found that the land was so much better then at home that they stayed
:-)

By he way, he earliest record of a Viking raid in England seems to
have described them as Danes:

"787 In this year [ . . .] came first three ships of Norwegians from
Hørthaland [around Hardanger Fjord]: and then the reeve rode thither
and tried to compel them to go to the royal manor, for he did not know
what they were: and then they slew him. These were the first ships of
the Danes to come to England."
--
cheers,

John B.

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. wrote:

> I suggest that a much better method of
> learning is to learn from other's mistakes,
> rather than one's own. A really competent
> engineer when asked to design
> a thing-a-ma-jig will first search the
> literature to discover all he can about
> previous designs, failures and uses.

Actually, I have read every book on rafts I've
come across! And I have written a long article
on the Kon-Tiki expedition which focuses on
the practical side to it:

http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/articles/kon-tiki/kon-tiki.pdf

That said, if you have a particular book in
mind I'll see if I can get it :)

> I suggest that adventures may be a little
> optimistic :-)

... optimistic? "Adventure" in the sense that
young, discontent men get ideas and then they
just do it, like Nike, tho that is Greek
mythology and not Nordic :)

> although religion may very well have entered
> into it as I have read references that the
> expansion of Christianity northward

Well, it was a lengthy process and the old
habits and beliefs lingered on. But I think it
is safe to say Christianity had a calming
influence on the whole...

You know their notion of paradise? A place were
you can eat, drink and fight, and the next day,
there isn't a hangover or a single mark to
tell, so you can do it all over, every day!

> Again, from what I have read, the basic
> reason for going Viking was an effort to get
> valuables.

Yes, the Europeans at this time were not as
tough as the Vikings so in the beginning at
least it was too easy to resist :)

> By he way, he earliest record of a Viking
> raid in England seems to have described them
> as Danes

Indeed, the Danes are more notorious than the
Swedes for aggression, in particular to the
west, while the Swedes were not only aggressive,
they were cunning merchants to the East as well
(to proto-Russia and the Byzantine Empire).

[John B.]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:56:37 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. wrote:
>
>> I suggest that a much better method of
>> learning is to learn from other's mistakes,
>> rather than one's own. A really competent
>> engineer when asked to design
>> a thing-a-ma-jig will first search the
>> literature to discover all he can about
>> previous designs, failures and uses.
>
>Actually, I have read every book on rafts I've
>come across! And I have written a long article
>on the Kon-Tiki expedition which focuses on
>the practical side to it:
>

> http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/articles/kon-tiki/korn-tiki.pdf
>
But rafts were not the point of the Kon-Tiki expedition. (and I did
read the book) the whole purpose was to demonstrate that movement of
people from S. America to the Islands was possible.

By the way, the photograph that heads your paper probably isn't at all
historically accurate as it is unlikely that sufficient heavy cloth to
make the sails shown probably would have been available in S. America
in that period.

>That said, if you have a particular book in
>mind I'll see if I can get it :)

No, I don't have a book available as first you must define your plan.

Is the plan to build a raft? Or to build a raft that can be moved? Or
to build a raft that can be sailed? If sailed, in what environment?
Sailing in a trade wind or monsoon weather pattern is vastly different
from sailing in Scandinavia. And if sailed, than on voyages? Or back
and forth on a lake?

Once you have defined your plan in detail than building something to
fit the plan is pretty easy.

>> I suggest that adventures may be a little
>> optimistic :-)
>
>... optimistic? "Adventure" in the sense that
>young, discontent men get ideas and then they
>just do it, like Nike, tho that is Greek
>mythology and not Nordic :)

Which sounds very exciting... until you look into the finances of an
expedition. While adventurous individuals certainly might have
volunteered I suspect it was down-to-earth "wealthy" people that
actually made it possible.

>> although religion may very well have entered
>> into it as I have read references that the
>> expansion of Christianity northward
>
>Well, it was a lengthy process and the old
>habits and beliefs lingered on. But I think it
>is safe to say Christianity had a calming
>influence on the whole...
>
>You know their notion of paradise? A place were
>you can eat, drink and fight, and the next day,
>there isn't a hangover or a single mark to
>tell, so you can do it all over, every day!
>

Well, one description of the Moslem Paradise is that one will have 47
young women to entertain you through eternity :-)

Which, to be accurate, is not what the Koran says. It is what someone
"commenting on the Koran wrote.

>> Again, from what I have read, the basic
>> reason for going Viking was an effort to get
>> valuables.
>
>Yes, the Europeans at this time were not as
>tough as the Vikings so in the beginning at
>least it was too easy to resist :)
>

Historian Peter Hunter Blair remarked that the Viking raiders would
have been astonished "at finding so many communities which housed
considerable wealth and whose inhabitants carried no arms"

>> By he way, he earliest record of a Viking
>> raid in England seems to have described them
>> as Danes
>
>Indeed, the Danes are more notorious than the
>Swedes for aggression, in particular to the
>west, while the Swedes were not only aggressive,
>they were cunning merchants to the East as well
>(to proto-Russia and the Byzantine Empire).

In fact it may well be that the origins of Moscow was a Swedish
trading camp :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. wrote:

> But rafts were not the point of the Kon-Tiki
> expedition. (and I did read the book) the
> whole purpose was to demonstrate that
> movement of people from S. America to the
> Islands was possible.

They built the raft as closely to what they
knew about what the originals looked like.
Not just to make their claim hold (more) true
but also as a safety measure because they
figured, assuming the theory correct, they'd be
(more) safe if they just did it exactly like
the "natives"...

There is adventure and theory in the book but
a large portion of it is practical things: the
raft, fishing, water, navigation, etc.
One would ask for even more but books in the
the 1940s weren't 600 pages like they are
today...

> By the way, the photograph that heads your
> paper probably isn't at all historically
> accurate as it is unlikely that sufficient
> heavy cloth to make the sails shown probably
> would have been available in S. America in
> that period.

It is a photograph of the Kon-Tiki raft, i.e.
somewhere 1947.

> Is the plan to build a raft? Or to build
> a raft that can be moved? Or to build a raft
> that can be sailed? If sailed, in what
> environment? Sailing in a trade wind or
> monsoon weather pattern is vastly different
> from sailing in Scandinavia. And if sailed,
> than on voyages? Or back and forth on a lake?

I'll start building the raft with wood,
barrels, and rope. If it floats, the sky is the
limit.

Putting a mast etc. on is an alternative tho it
probably won't be what boat people consider
"sailing"...

> Once you have defined your plan in detail than
> building something to fit the plan is
> pretty easy.

I typically don't plan things. When you plan,
often you get stuck on that phase and the plans
never materialize. If you just do it at least
something will happen.

>> ... optimistic? "Adventure" in the sense
>> that young, discontent men get ideas and
>> then they just do it, like Nike, tho that is
>> Greek mythology and not Nordic :)
>
> Which sounds very exciting... until you look
> into the finances of an expedition.
> While adventurous individuals certainly might
> have volunteered I suspect it was
> down-to-earth "wealthy" people that actually
> made it possible.

Well, the communities weren't extreamly poor
back then. Not all of them anyway. And if you
were a poor guy who wanted to be a Viking
warrior I'm sure you could start on someone
else's ship and work you way up. It was know as
"upward mobility" :)

The (successful) voyages themselves with all
the trade and plunder created profits, for sure.

> Historian Peter Hunter Blair remarked that
> the Viking raiders would have been astonished
> "at finding so many communities which housed
> considerable wealth and whose inhabitants
> carried no arms"

Crazy :)

[John B.]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:59:43 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. wrote:
>
>> But rafts were not the point of the Kon-Tiki
>> expedition. (and I did read the book) the
>> whole purpose was to demonstrate that
>> movement of people from S. America to the
>> Islands was possible.
>
>They built the raft as closely to what they
>knew about what the originals looked like.
>Not just to make their claim hold (more) true
>but also as a safety measure because they
>figured, assuming the theory correct, they'd be
>(more) safe if they just did it exactly like
>the "natives"...

The present consensus is that Hawaii and the Polynesian Island were
first populated in about 200 BCE and Hawaii in 300 BCE. Hawaii had a
known second wave of settlement in about 1,000 CE.

If you don't plan things than you make a lot of errors. Do Not take Up
Bridge Building :-)

>>> ... optimistic? "Adventure" in the sense
>>> that young, discontent men get ideas and
>>> then they just do it, like Nike, tho that is
>>> Greek mythology and not Nordic :)
>>
>> Which sounds very exciting... until you look
>> into the finances of an expedition.
>> While adventurous individuals certainly might
>> have volunteered I suspect it was
>> down-to-earth "wealthy" people that actually
>> made it possible.
>
>Well, the communities weren't extreamly poor
>back then. Not all of them anyway. And if you
>were a poor guy who wanted to be a Viking
>warrior I'm sure you could start on someone
>else's ship and work you way up. It was know as
>"upward mobility" :)

I suspect that in the early years that like all of Europe the economy
was very much subsistence farming and pay the Jarl his taxes. I would
guess very little cash was in circulation.

I read, from the Fóstbræðra saga that a words was worth a half mark
of gold. In saga-age Iceland, that represented the value of sixteen
milk-cows, a very substantial sum.

A ship is difficult to estimate but Soren Nielsen, the builder of the
Sea Stallion estimated that in the Viking era, it would have taken
about 10 skilled ship builders and 5 untrained hands, about 6 months
to build a large Viking long ship. Which apparently is only the actual
ship building. Logging out the timber, would have taken, probably a
whole winter.

I think that as in Europe at the time these expeditions were probably
a family project. I got a ship, my brother in law has a ship and my
wife's sister's husband is building a ship. Lets go down there to that
big island and we'll all get rich :-)

As for "working your way up? Given that the crew of say a 20 bench
ship would be about 40 oarsmen, a couple of steersmen a Captain and
perhaps the Jarl and some of his men. How to work your way up?
If you read the Sagas they seem to be largely about the actions of
"the boss" and his men.

I suppose that running ahead of the mob might work, for a while. and,
I would suppose that people would be slapping you on the shoulder and
saying "You are the Man". But it might be a short career :-)

>The (successful) voyages themselves with all
>the trade and plunder created profits, for sure.
>
>> Historian Peter Hunter Blair remarked that
>> the Viking raiders would have been astonished
>> "at finding so many communities which housed
>> considerable wealth and whose inhabitants
>> carried no arms"
>
>Crazy :)
--

cheers,

John B.

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. wrote:

> The present consensus is that Hawaii and the
> Polynesian Island were first populated in
> about 200 BCE and Hawaii in 300 BCE.
> Hawaii had a known second wave of settlement
> in about 1,000 CE.

OK? Well, the consensus before Kon-Tiki was
that it was impossible the make the journey,
and Heyerdahl & Co. proved that wrong with
their project.

> If you don't plan things than you make a lot
> of errors.

If I would make a list of the ten best things
I ever did not as single one of them was
planned. All the computer systems I just did
one function, one script, one configuration at
a time. For sure, I had a general idea what
I wanted but I never drew boxes on whiteboards
or studied specifications if that is
"planning". The bike workshop I've built in the
last year I also did one tool at a time, one
chain at a time and one hook to put a rim, and
so on.

On the contrary, I see many pitfalls in
planning. Often you don't know enough to make
a good plan. It is too hard envision what will
happen and how. Instead if you focus on the
everyday problems to be solved you know at
least they will be solved, and they don't
eventually collide and blow up, on the contrary
it looks like I had a plan how to create order
and how to organize stuff, but actually I did
it one day at a time.

Also whenever other people are involved
planning is often contra productive as many
people like to plan and pretend to work but
actually it is just a waste of time.
For example the place where I work there is
a "garden group". The have meetings every week
or month (?) but the garden looks like
a jungle. Once now I then I just take the
scythe and wave it down. It is like on hour!
If they did that instead of planning and
talking it would be a French rather than
English garden a long time ago!

In computing, there is something called formal
verification where you build a model which can
be quantified and mathematically verified.
This takes ages! And when it is done, what
happens is the formal verification only proves
that *the model* is correct - it doesn't say
one iota about the actual software, which at
that point isn't even written!

Then engineer approach of automated testing
where you bombard the software with random (but
valid) inputs is much better as it test the
real thing!

But even that isn't optimal. What is optimal is
having lots of people using the actual thing
for actual problems, and then they will tell
you when it fails. Lacking lots of people,
those people can be you alone just using the
software every day. So what if it breaks
a couple of times? Fixing that takes sometimes
just a couple of minutes compared to the hours
and weeks and months some people put into
planning and verifying and testing...

The Soviet Union had a planned economy and what
happened was insane bureaucracy and the advance
of people who liked to push papers and put
stamps on them and feel important about it, at
the expense of people who were passionate and
enterprising about work and the realization
of ideas.

> I suspect that in the early years that like
> all of Europe the economy was very much
> subsistence farming and pay the Jarl his
> taxes. I would guess very little cash was
> in circulation.

There was cash around but also many other types
of riches which served the purpose of cash
today, so it wasn't as standardized as today
obviously but there was no problems telling who
had and who didn't.

> A ship is difficult to estimate but Soren
> Nielsen, the builder of the Sea Stallion
> estimated that in the Viking era, it would
> have taken about 10 skilled ship builders and
> 5 untrained hands, about 6 months to build
> a large Viking long ship. Which apparently is
> only the actual ship building. Logging out
> the timber, would have taken, probably
> a whole winter.

Indeed, not a business for a bunch of lamers...

> I think that as in Europe at the time these
> expeditions were probably a family project.
> I got a ship, my brother in law has a ship
> and my wife's sister's husband is building
> a ship. Lets go down there to that big island
> and we'll all get rich :-)

Yes, I would think so.

> As for "working your way up? Given that the
> crew of say a 20 bench ship would be about 40
> oarsmen, a couple of steersmen a Captain and
> perhaps the Jarl and some of his men. How to
> work your way up? If you read the Sagas they
> seem to be largely about the actions of "the
> boss" and his men.

There were success stories and from rags to
riches then as it is today. I'm not sure it is
easier today than back then. Probably much the
same tho it is very hard to say and it depends
what you mean. But safe to say that people who
were ambitious and capable back then weren't
locked to poverty just because their parents
were poor, but obviously just as today they
would be at a disadvantage from the get-go...

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 64 Blogomatic articles -

[John B.]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 02:41:55 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. wrote:
>
>> The present consensus is that Hawaii and the
>> Polynesian Island were first populated in
>> about 200 BCE and Hawaii in 300 BCE.
>> Hawaii had a known second wave of settlement
>> in about 1,000 CE.
>
>OK? Well, the consensus before Kon-Tiki was
>that it was impossible the make the journey,
>and Heyerdahl & Co. proved that wrong with
>their project.
>

Not to demean Thor, but the fact that it has been proved possible for
man to travel to the moon and return doesn't prove that mankind
originated on the moon.

>> If you don't plan things than you make a lot
>> of errors.
>
>If I would make a list of the ten best things
>I ever did not as single one of them was
>planned. All the computer systems I just did
>one function, one script, one configuration at
>a time. For sure, I had a general idea what
>I wanted but I never drew boxes on whiteboards
>or studied specifications if that is
>"planning". The bike workshop I've built in the
>last year I also did one tool at a time, one
>chain at a time and one hook to put a rim, and
>so on.

Planning is not necessarily drawing boxes on whiteboards. In fact a
lot of planning is probably just thinking about things, and how you
are going to do them.

I can only say that I knew some IBM people who were building and
installing a computer system, hardware and software, for a large bank
here. They told me that they would expect to spend as long as a year
verifying the software.

It seems as though that banks get very testy when your software says 2
+ 2 = 3.99999 :-)

>Then engineer approach of automated testing
>where you bombard the software with random (but
>valid) inputs is much better as it test the
>real thing!
>
>But even that isn't optimal. What is optimal is
>having lots of people using the actual thing
>for actual problems, and then they will tell
>you when it fails. Lacking lots of people,
>those people can be you alone just using the
>software every day. So what if it breaks
>a couple of times? Fixing that takes sometimes
>just a couple of minutes compared to the hours
>and weeks and months some people put into
>planning and verifying and testing...
>
>The Soviet Union had a planned economy and what
>happened was insane bureaucracy and the advance
>of people who liked to push papers and put
>stamps on them and feel important about it, at
>the expense of people who were passionate and
>enterprising about work and the realization
>of ideas.

The problem with all political systems is that they don't account for
the human factor. The Communist theory, "from all according to their
ability and to all according to their needs" is a perfectly logical
social policy. But, as far as I know it has never worked.

The unfortunate thing is, that in spite of all the talk about income
inequality and the other examples of how unjust the social systems
are, the real reason the some people win and some people lose isn't ,
at least in most cases, who their daddy was, it is whether they got up
and did things.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. wrote:

> Not to demean Thor, but the fact that it has
> been proved possible for man to travel to the
> moon and return doesn't prove that mankind
> originated on the moon.

The Kon-Tiki expedition didn't prove anything
except that the journey was possible.

It probably had many other good side-effects
tho. Reading about such thing as a child or
youth and you'll be a man of action and
a positive person (sometimes).

The world in 1947 probably needed this kind of
stuff even more!

> Planning is not necessarily drawing boxes on
> whiteboards. In fact a lot of planning is
> probably just thinking about things, and how
> you are going to do them.

OK, when you put it that way, I'm all for
planning :)

> I can only say that I knew some IBM people
> who were building and installing a computer
> system, hardware and software, for a large
> bank here. They told me that they would
> expect to spend as long as a year verifying
> the software.

If someone pays me, I'm very happy to do that
with my software as well :) As no one is,
I rather spend that year writing new software
and fixing the occasional bug in the old stuff
as it turns up.

> The problem with all political systems is
> that they don't account for the human factor.
> The Communist theory, "from all according to
> their ability and to all according to their
> needs" is a perfectly logical social policy.
> But, as far as I know it has never worked.

The problem with the Communist system in
particular is that it advances people that are
careful, gets along with everyone and never
does anything without a stamp from the bureau
above. This much unlike the ruthless, dynamic
altruists that carried out the revolution...

Sometimes the Communist system works like the
Sputnik and Gagarin stuff but most often such
things require guys like Heyerdahl who did his
thing despite everyone telling him not to
do it.

> The unfortunate thing is, that in spite of
> all the talk about income inequality and the
> other examples of how unjust the social
> systems are, the real reason the some people
> win and some people lose isn't , at least in
> most cases, who their daddy was, it is
> whether they got up and did things.

100% correct.

[John B.]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 23:45:11 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. wrote:
>
>> Not to demean Thor, but the fact that it has
>> been proved possible for man to travel to the
>> moon and return doesn't prove that mankind
>> originated on the moon.
>
>The Kon-Tiki expedition didn't prove anything
>except that the journey was possible.
>
>It probably had many other good side-effects
>tho. Reading about such thing as a child or
>youth and you'll be a man of action and
>a positive person (sometimes).
>

The part I liked was Thor and the boys sitting around trying to figure
out, how in the world primitive people could move the stone heads all
over the island. Finally one of the local guys asks Thor what the
problem was and Thor tells him they were trying to figure out how the
stone heads were moved and the local looked at him, probably in
amazement, and says, "You don't know?" Thor says it has been a problem
among scholars for some years and no one can figure it out and the
local guy says, "O.K., tomorrow we'll show you". The next morning the
local guys show up and they not only move a head to an auspicious
location but they stand it up and put the "hat" on it.

>The world in 1947 probably needed this kind of
>stuff even more!
>
>> Planning is not necessarily drawing boxes on
>> whiteboards. In fact a lot of planning is
>> probably just thinking about things, and how
>> you are going to do them.
>
>OK, when you put it that way, I'm all for
>planning :)
>
>> I can only say that I knew some IBM people
>> who were building and installing a computer
>> system, hardware and software, for a large
>> bank here. They told me that they would
>> expect to spend as long as a year verifying
>> the software.
>
>If someone pays me, I'm very happy to do that
>with my software as well :) As no one is,
>I rather spend that year writing new software
>and fixing the occasional bug in the old stuff
>as it turns up.

Every time someone talks about "programming" I think abut Word Star,
perhaps the most successful of the early word processes. It was a
monolithic program in assembly language and ran on the Z-80 processor,
on the CP/M operating system. It was written by a guy named " John
Robbins Barnaby", in four months. 137,000 lines of assembler code.

Perhaps the most telling point is that there weren't, as far as I
know, any up-dates or bug fixes or other changes until version 3.3 was
released for the IBM-PC about three years later, a totally different
operating system.

But in all honest I also remember a procurement tracking system I
wrote in C (a new programming language :-). It worked flawless for a
year and than stopped. As this was most of the records for a large
maintenance contract it was, somewhat of an emergency.

It took me about 20 minutes to find the problem, a single "delete
line" to correct it and the rest of the day to concoct a usable
explanation :-)

What I had done, when testing the program, was insert a line "if X >
10000 than exit(1)" to prevent the test program from running forever
and when it was successfully tested.... I forgot to remove the line. )
When we entered the 10,000th procurement order the whole thing stopped
:-(

>> The problem with all political systems is
>> that they don't account for the human factor.
>> The Communist theory, "from all according to
>> their ability and to all according to their
>> needs" is a perfectly logical social policy.
>> But, as far as I know it has never worked.
>
>The problem with the Communist system in
>particular is that it advances people that are
>careful, gets along with everyone and never
>does anything without a stamp from the bureau
>above. This much unlike the ruthless, dynamic
>altruists that carried out the revolution...
>
>Sometimes the Communist system works like the
>Sputnik and Gagarin stuff but most often such
>things require guys like Heyerdahl who did his
>thing despite everyone telling him not to
>do it.

I think, perhaps, that all political systems, and probably very large
companies too, have their moments. The Sputnik program, the AK-47 and
perhaps the T-34 tank were all superlative accomplishments. The
Collectivization, on the other hand was a less successful scheme.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. wrote:

> The part I liked was Thor and the boys
> sitting around trying to figure out, how in
> the world primitive people could move the
> stone heads all over the island. Finally one
> of the local guys asks Thor what the problem
> was and Thor tells him they were trying to
> figure out how the stone heads were moved and
> the local looked at him, probably in
> amazement, and says, "You don't know?" Thor
> says it has been a problem among scholars for
> some years and no one can figure it out and
> the local guy says, "O.K., tomorrow we'll
> show you". The next morning the local guys
> show up and they not only move a head to an
> auspicious location but they stand it up and
> put the "hat" on it.

Ha ha, the local being the boastful and
intolerable "long-ear" mayor who pained
everyone with his tiresome brag, but whose wood
carvings by all means were by far superior to
anything else on the island :)

This is another book for the record, a book
even more (?) wonderful than the Kon-Tiki one,
in Swedish:

@book{aku-aku,
author = {Thor Heyerdahl},
publisher = {Bonniers},
title = {Aku-aku. Påsköns hemlighet},
year = 1957

}

> Every time someone talks about "programming"
> I think abut Word Star, perhaps the most
> successful of the early word processes.
> It was a monolithic program in assembly
> language and ran on the Z-80 processor, on
> the CP/M operating system. It was written by
> a guy named " John Robbins Barnaby", in four
> months. 137,000 lines of assembler code.

You see? Straight long-ear!

> What I had done, when testing the program,
> was insert a line "if X > 10000 than exit(1)"
> to prevent the test program from running
> forever and when it was successfully
> tested.... I forgot to remove the line. )
> When we entered the 10,000th procurement
> order the whole thing stopped :-(

Crazy!

> I think, perhaps, that all political systems,
> and probably very large companies too, have
> their moments. The Sputnik program, the AK-47
> and perhaps the T-34 tank were all
> superlative accomplishments.

Good examples, again for the record now we only
mention the superstar moves, obviously there
were countless of which we will never know.

> The Collectivization, on the other hand was
> a less successful scheme.

Perhaps less successful in terms of
agriculture but in terms of punishing the
entire population prior to the world war...?

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 66 Blogomatic articles -

[AMuzi]

Thank you.
We pause with teary eyes to remember CP/M WordStar.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Emanuel Berg]

AMuzi wrote:

> Thank you. We pause with teary eyes to
> remember CP/M WordStar.

There is an Emacs mode (built in, actually):

wordstar-mode
Command: Major mode with WordStar-like
key bindings.

Is that the same? Sounds like it.

For the real deal tho one would get a Z-80 CP/M
emulator to run... or a time machine.

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic

- so far: 66 Blogomatic articles -

[John B.]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 08:23:56 +0200, Emanuel Berg

<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. wrote:
>

Snipped

>> amazement, and says, "You don't know?" Thor
>> says it has been a problem among scholars for
>> some years and no one can figure it out and
>> the local guy says, "O.K., tomorrow we'll
>> show you". The next morning the local guys
>> show up and they not only move a head to an
>> auspicious location but they stand it up and
>> put the "hat" on it.
>
>Ha ha, the local being the boastful and
>intolerable "long-ear" mayor who pained
>everyone with his tiresome brag, but whose wood
>carvings by all means were by far superior to
>anything else on the island :)
>
>This is another book for the record, a book
>even more (?) wonderful than the Kon-Tiki one,
>in Swedish:
>
> @book{aku-aku,
> author = {Thor Heyerdahl},
> publisher = {Bonniers},
> title = {Aku-aku. Påsköns hemlighet},
> year = 1957
> }

I read that also - in English :-)

MORE SNIPPED

>
>> I think, perhaps, that all political systems,
>> and probably very large companies too, have
>> their moments. The Sputnik program, the AK-47
>> and perhaps the T-34 tank were all
>> superlative accomplishments.
>
>Good examples, again for the record now we only
>mention the superstar moves, obviously there
>were countless of which we will never know.
>
>> The Collectivization, on the other hand was
>> a less successful scheme.
>
>Perhaps less successful in terms of
>agriculture but in terms of punishing the
>entire population prior to the world war...?

I find it interesting that Russia freed their "slaves", i,e., Serfs in
1861 by decree of the Emperor while the U.S. had to fight a disastrous
war to free theirs in 1865.

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 16:30:11 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>AMuzi wrote:
>
>> Thank you. We pause with teary eyes to
>> remember CP/M WordStar.
>
>There is an Emacs mode (built in, actually):
>
> wordstar-mode
> Command: Major mode with WordStar-like
> key bindings.
>
>Is that the same? Sounds like it.
>
>For the real deal tho one would get a Z-80 CP/M
>emulator to run... or a time machine.

Emacs? Good Lord! I thought you had to be an over aged hippie to use
that :-)

WordStar was designed to be used on the "dumb terminals" of the time
and most of the commands were CTL-something, and a four key
up-down-right-left system on the left side of the keyboard. See
https://www.editpadpro.com/manual/prefskeyboardwordstar.html or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wordstar_Screenshot.png for a
picture.

There is a WordStar look-a-like called "Joe" that is available for
Linux.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Britain outlawed (most?) slavery in its empire only about 30 years
earlier than the U.S.

And around 1900, at least one famous British company was still relying
on products produced by slaves, according to this book
https://www.amazon.com/Chocolate-Trial-Slavery-Politics-Business/dp/082141626X

written by a good cycling friend of mine.

- Frank Krygowski


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. wrote:

> I read that also - in English :-)

I know, because the story you told is from the
Easter Island book :)

> I find it interesting that Russia freed their
> "slaves", i,e., Serfs in 1861 by decree of
> the Emperor while the U.S. had to fight
> a disastrous war to free theirs in 1865.

That's very Russian. Good people, good emperor,
bad counselors. I don't know if it holds tho...

[Emanuel Berg]

John B. wrote:

> Emacs? Good Lord! I thought you had to be an
> over aged hippie to use that :-)

*iiiii*!

I remember some political slogan that all
hippies should be killed ("kill all hippies"?)
- I didn't understand it then and now I just
think they are, well, un-attractive, especially
the over aged ones.

But if they use Emacs, they can't be all bad
now that I think about it!

> There is a WordStar look-a-like called "Joe"
> that is available for Linux.

There is a Joe in the Debian (Raspbian) repos,
and they mention WordStar in this introduction
(last paragraph):

Joe, the Joe's Own Editor, has the feel of most
PC text editors: the key sequences are
reminiscent of WordStar and Turbo
C editors, but the feature set is much
larger than of those. Joe has all of the
features a Unix user should expect: full
use of termcap/terminfo, complete VI-style
Unix integration, a powerful configuration
file, and regular expression search system.
It also has six help reference cards which
are always available, and an intuitive,
simple, and well thought-out
user interface.

Joe has a great screen update optimization
algorithm, multiple windows (through/between
which you can scroll) and lacks the confusing
notion of named buffers. It has command
history, TAB expansion in file selection menus,
undo and redo functions, (un)indenting and
paragraph formatting, filtering highlighted
blocks through any external Unix command,
editing a pipe into or out of a command,
and block move, copy, delete or filter.

Through simple QEdit-style configuration files,
Joe can be set up to emulate editors such as
Pico and Emacs, along with a complete imitation
of WordStar, and a restricted mode version
(lets you edit only the files specified on
the command line). Joe also has a deferred
screen update to handle typeahead, and it
ensures that deferral is not bypassed by
tty buffering. It's usable even at 2400
baud, and it will work on any kind of sane
terminal. Homepage:
http://joe-editor.sourceforge.net/

[John B.]

Oh My God! Horrifying!

But of course you Americans bought 1.054 thousand barrels of oil a day
from Saudi Arabia in Jan 2016, and are still buying oil from them
today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Saudi_Arabia
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:00:54 +0200, Emanuel Berg
<embe...@student.uu.se> wrote:

>John B. wrote:
>
>> Emacs? Good Lord! I thought you had to be an
>> over aged hippie to use that :-)
>
>*iiiii*!
>
>I remember some political slogan that all
>hippies should be killed ("kill all hippies"?)
>- I didn't understand it then and now I just
>think they are, well, un-attractive, especially
>the over aged ones.

I never heard that but I did see bumper stickers saying something
like, "If you are robbed call a Hippy, not a Cop" :-)

>
>But if they use Emacs, they can't be all bad
>now that I think about it!
>
>> There is a WordStar look-a-like called "Joe"
>> that is available for Linux.
>
>There is a Joe in the Debian (Raspbian) repos,
>and they mention WordStar in this introduction
>(last paragraph):

I've installed Joe out of nostalgia once or twice and it is surprising
how awkward the old WordStar command keys are if one is not using the
old dumb terminals :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

I'm not particularly happy about buying that oil. But nobody in power
ever bothers to ask about that.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 22:43:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski

I don't know the up to the minute figures but in 2015 petroleum import
from the OPEC countries was about 50% of net imports, i.e., total
imports less exports. About 2.65 million Bbls oil a day.
From another chart U.S. usage in 20915 was about 19.4 million
Bbls/day.

There is another factor that usually goes unnoticed. The Saudi's
usually take a conservative position in OPEC and have enough oil to
enforce their position.
--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

it's a world market in a (nearly) fungible commodity so
consider also the other big slavers in Sudan, Nigeria etc.
Don't leave out the totalitarians in Venezuela, where
communism is slavery by another name.

But we're oh-so-moralizing that we inhibit our own
extraction industries, leading to unemployment, reduced
exports and de facto empowerment of some of the worst
regimes on earth. Try to comprehend the pernicious policies
which empower the Keeper of the Two Mosques while punishing
Canada. I can't.

[John B.]

U.S. policies have always been a bit of a mystery. Overthrowing
governments in aid of one of the world's larger copper companies or
providing support for radical Moslem movements who's stated aims are
world domination. Or paying people to have babies out of wedlock and
paying them not to work all seem a bit strange to the untutored eye.

Perhaps with an advanced degree in Swahili or basket weaving it would
be clearer?
--
cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Forget about copper. We were overthrowing governments for bananas and British oil interests. Many policy decisions seemed correct at the time but look stupid in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time and in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time but are now seen as good, including various bail-outs. Eisenhower was pretty good with the stupid at the time but now seen as good, like his views on the military industrial complex and the Federal Highway Act which was seen by conservatives as the new new deal. He backed a national health system. My gawd! As for SA, the reason we've been friends is obvious.

You should read this: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Faith-Fantasy-America-Present/dp/0393330303 Our national history has been shaped by our relationship with the Middle East -- right down to our first battle ship and the Marine Hymn.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

To be pedantic it wasn't the first battle ship, which wasn't
commissioned until about 90 years after the Derna campaign :-)

But what I find rather ironic is that in the early 1800's the Barbery
Pirates were pirating ships and holding them for ransom. the U.S.
sailed in with two war ships, shelled the town, captured it with a
force of something like 500 men and disposed the Pasha, replacing him
with a "friend". Everybody involved was a hero, songs were written
about it.

About 200 years later the same thing happened in Somalia. They formed
a committee.

--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

A lot has changed indeed. Captain Eaton was given general
orders and left to his own good sense. Which he had in spades.

There are now US servicemen in Leavenworth for breaking
wackjob rules of engagement while under fire. Judged by men
who were not there I might add.

[jbeattie]

That's what I'm saying -- we built our first navy ships because our commercial vessels were being harassed by the Barbary pirates, among others. http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=USS-United-States-1797
That was a big step as a new federal government, motivated in large part by our relationship with the Muslim world.

>
> But what I find rather ironic is that in the early 1800's the Barbery
> Pirates were pirating ships and holding them for ransom. the U.S.
> sailed in with two war ships, shelled the town, captured it with a
> force of something like 500 men and disposed the Pasha, replacing him
> with a "friend". Everybody involved was a hero, songs were written
> about it.

> About 200 years later the same thing happened in Somalia. They formed
> a committee.

Well, whose ass would you recommend kicking to end piracy in Somalia? It's not like you can depose some pasha and it ends. It's a bunch of down-and-outer fishermen turned thugs, AFAIK. If we moved in a bunch of war ships, they would just have to sit around, waiting for Akbar in a skiff to try to hijack a Maersk container ship. Not even worthy of a verse.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

No need for a flagged military vessel. There are a host of
private security firms doing very effective antipiracy work
for commercial shipping now. That includes I'm sure a few
Cat-5 type wannabees but also retired British SBS, US
Special Forces etc.

Any bets on Achmed & Kemal vs. ex-Spetsnaz Russians?

http://antipirates.org/

[John B.]

Actually, those making the rules, wackjob or not, are seldom, one
might even say never, in the front lines under fire.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:49:38 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie

Nope again :-) The first U.S. purpose built war ships were a fleet of
some six Frigates, "a fleet of frigates powerful enough to engage any
frigates of the French or British navies" :-)

>>
>> But what I find rather ironic is that in the early 1800's the Barbery
>> Pirates were pirating ships and holding them for ransom. the U.S.
>> sailed in with two war ships, shelled the town, captured it with a
>> force of something like 500 men and disposed the Pasha, replacing him
>> with a "friend". Everybody involved was a hero, songs were written
>> about it.
>
>> About 200 years later the same thing happened in Somalia. They formed
>> a committee.
>
>Well, whose ass would you recommend kicking to end piracy in Somalia? It's not like you can depose some pasha and it ends. It's a bunch of down-and-outer fishermen turned thugs, AFAIK. If we moved in a bunch of war ships, they would just have to sit around, waiting for Akbar in a skiff to try to hijack a Maersk container ship. Not even worthy of a verse.
>
>-- Jay Beattie.

It might have started as some poor impoverished fisherman but it is
now a very successful business complete with foreign investment and
estimated $6.6 to $6.9 billion a year income in 2011.

And just exactly as in "Tripoli" it isn't the Pasha crewing those
ships it is the whole mob. Far easier than fishing and the returns are
better too.

From the Wikki:

The funding of piracy operations is now structured in a stock
exchange, with investors buying and selling shares in upcoming attacks
in a bourse in Harardhere. Pirates say ransom money is paid in large
denomination US$ bills.

According to the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), a
veritable industry of profiteers has also risen around the piracy.
Insurance companies, in particular, have profited from the pirate
attacks, as insurance premiums have increased significantly. DIW
reports that, in order to keep premiums high, insurance firms have not
demanded that ship owners take security precautions that would make
hijackings more difficult. For their part, shipping companies often do
not comply with naval guidelines on how best to prevent pirate attacks
in order to cut down on costs. In addition, security contractors and
the German arms industry have profited from the phenomenon.[5]

--
cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

The Russians just know how to have fun! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLj3aYPXEEo

Damn, was there any weapon they didn't fire? I bet they were running below decks to get toothpaste to squeeze on the pirates -- empty everything down to the AK47s and then throw some smelly socks at them. Woohoo!

The US is more from the "one and done" school -- not much fun to be had there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpROKYVtVB8

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

Back in the Old Days when piracy was rife in the Malacca Straits there
was a couple of security companies in Singapore that used to provide
"security" for shipping in the Straits.

From a newspaper article in the Straits Times newspaper, these people
would board in Singapore with some boxes and packages, the ship would
sail and the extra people would disembark in Penang - after the ship
was though the straits.

Strangely, I don't remember reading about pirate attacks being beaten
off but apparently the frequency dropped as the practice of carrying
security company people died out in a couple of years.

Now, of course, it is a multi-national effort with the Indonesian,
Malaysian and Singapore navies involved.
--
cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Go back to my link. Also read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Act_of_1794

Here is the text of the act:

Chap. XII. -- An Act to provide a Naval Armament


Whereas the depredations committed by the Algerine corsairs on the commerce of the United States render it necessary that a naval force should be provided for its protection:

Section 1. Be it therefore enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be authorized to provide, by purchase or otherwise, equip and employ four ships to carry forty-four guns each, and two ships to carry thirty-six guns each.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That there shall be employed on board each of the said ships of forty-four guns, one captain, four lieutenants, one lieutenant of marines, one chaplain, one surgeon, and two surgeon’s mates; and in each of the ships of thirty-six guns, one captain, three lieutenants, one lieutenant of marines, one surgeon, and one surgeon’s mate, who shall be appointed and commissioned in like manner as other officers of the United States are.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That there shall be employed, in each of the said ships, the following warrant officers, who shall be appointed by the President of the United States, to wit: One sailing-master, one purser, one boatswain, one gunner, one sail-maker, one carpenter, and eight midshipmen; and the following petty officers, who shall be appointed by the captains of the ships, respectively, in which they are to be employed, viz: two master’s mates, one captain’s clerk, two boatswain’s mates, one cockswain, one sail-maker’s mate, two gunner’s mates, one yeoman of the gun room, nine quarter-gunners, (and for the four larger ships two additional quarter-gunners,) two carpenter’s mates, one armourer, one steward, one cooper, one master-at-arms, and one cook.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the crews of each of the said ships of forty-four guns, shall consist of one hundred and fifty seamen, one hundred and three midshipmen and ordinary seamen, one sergeant, one corporal, one drum, one fife, and fifty marines; and that the crews of each of the said ships of thirty-six guns shall consist of one hundred and thirty able seamen and midshipmen, ninety ordinary seamen, one sergeant, two corporals, one drum, one fife, and forty marines, over and above the officers herein before mentioned.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby empowered, to provide, by purchase or may purchase a force not exceeding that directed by this act.otherwise, in lieu of the said six ships, a naval force not exceeding, in the whole, that by this act directed, so that no ship thus provided shall carry less than thirty-two guns; or he may so provide any proportion thereof, which, in his discretion, he may think proper.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That the pay and subsistence of the respective commissioned and warrant officers be as follows:—A captain, seventy-five dollars per month, and six rations per day;—a lieutenant, forty dollars per month, and three rations per day;—a lieutenant of marines, twenty-six dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a chaplain, forty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a sailing-master, forty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a surgeon, fifty dollars per month, and two rations per day; a surgeon’s mate, thirty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a purser, forty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a boatswain, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a gunner, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a sailmaker, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a carpenter, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day.

Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That the pay to be allowed to the petty officers, midshipmen, seamen, ordinary seamen and marines, shall be fixed by the President of the United States: Provided, That the whole sum to be given for the whole pay aforesaid, shall not exceed twenty-seven thousand dollars per month, and that each of the said persons shall be entitled to one ration per day.

Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the ration shall consist of, as follows: Sunday, one pound of bread, one pound and a half of beef, and half a pint of rice:—Monday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, half a pint of peas or beans, and four ounces of cheese:—Tuesday, one pound of bread, one pound and a half of beef, and one pound of potatoes, or turnips, and pudding: Wednesday, one pound of bread, two ounces of butter, or in lieu thereof, six ounces of molasses, four ounces of cheese, and half a pint of rice:—Thursday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, and half a pint of peas or beans:—Friday, one pound of bread, one pound of salt fish, two ounces of butter or one gill of oil, and one pound of potatoes:—Saturday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, half a pint of peas or beans, and four ounces of cheese:—And there shall also be allowed one half pint of distilled spirits per day, or, in lieu thereof, one quart of beer per day, to each ration.

Sec. 9. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That if a peace shall take place between the United States and the Regency of Algiers, that no farther proceeding be had under this act.

Approved, March 27, 1794.


That's how our Navy got started.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/17/2016 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> From the Wikki:
>
> The funding of piracy operations is now structured in a stock
> exchange, with investors buying and selling shares in upcoming attacks
> in a bourse in Harardhere. Pirates say ransom money is paid in large
> denomination US$ bills.
>
> According to the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), a
> veritable industry of profiteers has also risen around the piracy.
> Insurance companies, in particular, have profited from the pirate
> attacks, as insurance premiums have increased significantly. DIW
> reports that, in order to keep premiums high, insurance firms have not
> demanded that ship owners take security precautions that would make
> hijackings more difficult. For their part, shipping companies often do
> not comply with naval guidelines on how best to prevent pirate attacks
> in order to cut down on costs. In addition, security contractors and
> the German arms industry have profited from the phenomenon.[5]

In other words, when there's money to be made, people will do what they
can to make money.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:58:42 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie

Right, the Naval Act established a Navy.... and, as I said, the first
purpose build U.S. navy warships were contracted for in 1794 and the
first one was commissioned in 1797. :-) The 3rd of the six was
launched on October 21, 1797 and is still in commission today.

>Here is the text of the act:
>
>Chap. XII. -- An Act to provide a Naval Armament
>
>
>Whereas the depredations committed by the Algerine corsairs on the commerce of the United States render it necessary that a naval force should be provided for its protection:
>
>Section 1. Be it therefore enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be authorized to provide, by purchase or otherwise, equip and employ four ships to carry forty-four guns each, and two ships to carry thirty-six guns each.
>
>Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That there shall be employed on board each of the said ships of forty-four guns, one captain, four lieutenants, one lieutenant of marines, one chaplain, one surgeon, and two surgeon’s mates; and in each of the ships of thirty-six guns, one captain, three lieutenants, one lieutenant of marines, one surgeon, and one surgeon’s mate, who shall be appointed and commissioned in like manner as other officers of the United States are.
>
>Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That there shall be employed, in each of the said ships, the following warrant officers, who shall be appointed by the President of the United States, to wit: One sailing-master, one purser, one boatswain, one gunner, one sail-maker, one carpenter, and eight midshipmen; and the following petty officers, who shall be appointed by the captains of the ships, respectively, in which they are to be employed, viz: two master’s mates, one captain’s clerk, two boatswain’s mates, one cockswain, one sail-maker’s mate, two gunner’s mates, one yeoman of the gun room, nine quarter-gunners, (and for the four larger ships two additional quarter-gunners,) two carpenter’s mates, one armourer, one steward, one cooper, one master-at-arms, and one cook.
>
>Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the crews of each of the said ships of forty-four guns, shall consist of one hundred and fifty seamen, one hundred and three midshipmen and ordinary seamen, one sergeant, one corporal, one drum, one fife, and fifty marines; and that the crews of each of the said ships of thirty-six guns shall consist of one hundred and thirty able seamen and midshipmen, ninety ordinary seamen, one sergeant, two corporals, one drum, one fife, and forty marines, over and above the officers herein before mentioned.
>
>Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby empowered, to provide, by purchase or may purchase a force not exceeding that directed by this act.otherwise, in lieu of the said six ships, a naval force not exceeding, in the whole, that by this act directed, so that no ship thus provided shall carry less than thirty-two guns; or he may so provide any proportion thereof, which, in his discretion, he may think proper.
>
>Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That the pay and subsistence of the respective commissioned and warrant officers be as follows:—A captain, seventy-five dollars per month, and six rations per day;—a lieutenant, forty dollars per month, and three rations per day;—a lieutenant of marines, twenty-six dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a chaplain, forty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a sailing-master, forty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a surgeon, fifty dollars per month, and two rations per day; a surgeon’s mate, thirty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a purser, forty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a boatswain, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a gunner, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a sailmaker, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a carpenter, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day.
>
>Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That the pay to be allowed to the petty officers, midshipmen, seamen, ordinary seamen and marines, shall be fixed by the President of the United States: Provided, That the whole sum to be given for the whole pay aforesaid, shall not exceed twenty-seven thousand dollars per month, and that each of the said persons shall be entitled to one ration per day.
>
>Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the ration shall consist of, as follows: Sunday, one pound of bread, one pound and a half of beef, and half a pint of rice:—Monday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, half a pint of peas or beans, and four ounces of cheese:—Tuesday, one pound of bread, one pound and a half of beef, and one pound of potatoes, or turnips, and pudding: Wednesday, one pound of bread, two ounces of butter, or in lieu thereof, six ounces of molasses, four ounces of cheese, and half a pint of rice:—Thursday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, and half a pint of peas or beans:—Friday, one pound of bread, one pound of salt fish, two ounces of butter or one gill of oil, and one pound of potatoes:—Saturday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, half a pint of peas or beans, and four ounces of cheese:—And there shall also be allowed one half pint of distilled spirits per day, or, in lieu thereof, one quart of beer per day, to each ration.
>
>Sec. 9. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That if a peace shall take place between the United States and the Regency of Algiers, that no farther proceeding be had under this act.
>
>Approved, March 27, 1794.
>
>
>That's how our Navy got started.
>
>-- Jay Beattie.

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Amazing, but true :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

If I recall the rash of pirated oil transports there in the
1990s turned out to be (possibly renegade but who knows)
PLAN operations with their own docks and terminals. They
were eventually hanged, probably for not paying off the
right Party members I assume.

[The Mighty Ant]

Certainly. The blokes with the Black flags are a dim and distant
memory and what can a few honest pirates do with say $750,000 of
diesel oil?

In the 1980's and probably later, the ships would either disappear in
route or in relatively fewer cases be boarded, usually on the
Indonesian side of the straits, and sailed away and never seen again.

Obviously the cargo went into commercial distribution systems and the
vessel was be-badge and sold off. Poor beleaguered fishermen can't
usually pull off these kinds of deals.
--
and a good day to you Sir,

The Mighty Ant