Is this a novel (or technical?) use of the word 'broach'?

[Angel A.]

What does "broach" mean in this usage?

Cite:
The torpedoes were reaching end-of-run as they approached their
target, and broached.

Site:
http://battlestations.eu/index.php/en/our-encyclopedia/naval-battles/89-battle-off-samar?start=3

Googling, I find broached means what I thought it meant, but,
nothing to do with torpedoes exploding or surfacing or whatever
they did when they "broached" in the above setting.

broach 1 (brch)
tr.v. broached, broach·ing, broach·es
1.
a. To bring up (a subject) for discussion or debate.
b. To announce: We broached our plans for the new year.
2. To pierce in order to draw off liquid: broach a keg of beer.
3. To draw off (a liquid) by piercing a hole in a cask or other container.
4. To shape or enlarge (a hole) with a tapered, serrated tool.
n.
1.
a. A tapered, serrated tool used to shape or enlarge a hole.
b. The hole made by such a tool.
2. A spit for roasting meat.
3. A mason's narrow chisel.
4. A gimlet for tapping or broaching casks.
5. Variant of brooch.

[Leslie Danks]

Dictionary.com also hastwo intransitive meanings:

[quote]
verb (used without object)
13.
Nautical . (of a sailing vessel) to veer to windward.
14.
to break the surface of water; rise from the sea, as a fish or a
submarine.
[/quote]

<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/broach?s=t>

Meaning 14 might well be the intended one.

--
Les (BrE)
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a dime.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:29:36 +0200, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
wrote:

That's the meaning I've met in connection with torpedos (and
submarines).

This extract from a book:
http://www.americainwwii.com/articles/the-last-torpedo/

....
On the bridge, Bill Leibold scanned the waters with his binoculars.
He stood next to O’Kane. Suddenly, he saw the last torpedo, Number
24, broach and then begin to porpoise, phosphorescence trailing it.
....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo#Running_too_deep

....
The torpedo tended to run some ten feet (3 meters) too deep...
After hearing of the problem, most submarine skippers simply set
their torpedoes running depth to zero, risking a broach.

A class of Japanese submarine as used at Pearl Harbor:
http://i-16tou.com/stlou/stlou2.html

These submarines were notorious for broaching to the surface after
firing their first torpedo and the reason for this is obvious. Each
of the two Type 97 torpedoes carried in the submarines that
participated in the Pearl Harbor attack weighed approximately 2161
lbs. When the first torpedo left the tube, the sudden release of
about a ton of deadweight from the extreme forward nose caused the
bow of the 46-ton Ko-hyoteki to rise uncontrollably. This violent
pitching of the bow often caused the sub to broach the surface...

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

[R H Draney]

Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> filted:

>
>On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:29:36 +0200, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
>wrote:
>>

>>Dictionary.com also hastwo intransitive meanings:
>>
>>[quote]
>>verb (used without object)
>>13.
>>Nautical . (of a sailing vessel) to veer to windward.
>>14.
>>to break the surface of water; rise from the sea, as a fish or a
>>submarine.
>>[/quote]
>>
>><http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/broach?s=t>
>>
>>Meaning 14 might well be the intended one.
>
>That's the meaning I've met in connection with torpedos (and
>submarines).

And I, in connection with whales....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Nick Spalding]

R H Draney wrote, in <ksj1e...@drn.newsguy.com>
on 22 Jul 2013 03:27:23 -0700:

I more often hear breach rather than broach for whales.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Mac]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:29:36 +0200, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
wrote:

In fact, at base, meaning fourteen, and meanings one and two are the
same: "let's bring this thing to the light, shall we." The meaning
you think central is the metaphorical one, based directly on the one
you find obscure.

Anthony "a lot of that going round" McCafferty

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

"broach", n and v, has the same origin as "brooch", n: a long pointed
object or piercing with a pointed object.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=brooch

brooch (n.)
early 13c., from Old French broche "long needle" (see broach (n.)).
Specialized meaning led 14c. to distinct spelling.


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=broach&allowed_in_frame=0

broach (n.)
"pointed instrument," c.1300, from Old French broche (12c.) "spit
for roasting, awl, point end, top," ....

broach (v.)
"pierce," early 14c., from the same source as broach (n.)....

[Mac]

Yupper. I find it interesting that a more metaphorical meaning has
eclipsed a less metaphorical meaning. Mr. Porpoise -or Mr. torpedo -
popping up though the waves looks an awful lot like a needle coming up
through fabric, don't he?

Anthony "Entemology (sic) is always hard to pin down" McCafferty

[Angel A.]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:29:36 +0200, Leslie Danks wrote:

> Nautical . (of a sailing vessel) to veer to windward.
> 14.
> to break the surface of water; rise from the sea, as a fish or a
> submarine.

That's it!

Thanks.

[Mike L]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:58:17 +0100, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
wrote:

Tangentially, Blondie Hasler once explained to me at a show that a
gybe was impossible with his junk rig.

--
Mike.

[Fran Jones]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:29:36 +0200, Leslie Danks wrote:

> to break the surface of water; rise from the sea, as a fish or a
> submarine.

Does that mean it stopped working?

[Leslie Danks]

The word itself doesn't indicate or imply that one way or the other. You
must ask the OP for any context in this particular case.

[Mac]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:43:06 +0200, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
wrote:

>Fran Jones wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:29:36 +0200, Leslie Danks wrote:
>>
>>> to break the surface of water; rise from the sea, as a fish or a
>>> submarine.
>>
>> Does that mean it stopped working?
>
>The word itself doesn't indicate or imply that one way or the other. You
>must ask the OP for any context in this particular case.

I expect that their might be some tension around that question.

Anthony "Surface tension, that is." McCafferty

[Odysseus]

In article <kskdbt$bhh$1...@news.mixmin.net>,

For a torpedo, yes, it would be indicative of either a malfunction or
poor aiming -- there are relevant quotations in a post of Peter D's in
this thread -- AFAICT because the guidance or propulsion systems don't
work properly on the surface, and a strike below the target's waterline
will be the most effective.

--
Odysseus

[Robert Bannister]

I often see newspaper photographs of beaching rather than breaching or
broaching.

--
Robert Bannister

[Angel A.]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:04:58 -0700, Mac wrote:

>>> Does that mean it stopped working?
>>
>>The word itself doesn't indicate or imply that one way or the other. You
>>must ask the OP for any context in this particular case.
>
> I expect that their might be some tension around that question.

Well, the context was this historical web page about the USS Johnston
where my late uncle served in WWII:
http://battlestations.eu/index.php/en/our-encyclopedia/naval-battles/89-battle-off-samar?start=3

The "implication" is that it "ran out of steam" when it broached,
and, by context, that torpedo certainly didn't hit the USS Johnston.

"Two hours into the attack, Captain Evans aboard the Johnston spotted
a line of four Japanese destroyers led by the light cruiser Yahagi
making a torpedo attack on the carriers and moved to intercept.
Johnston fired and scored hits on them, pressuring them to fire
their torpedoes prematurely at 10,500 yards distance at 09:15.

[Angel A.]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:04:55 +0100, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

> This violent pitching of the bow often caused the sub to
> broach the surface...

I think broach pretty much must mean to break the surface
unnaturally.

[Daniel James]

In article
<odysseus1479-at-CE...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Odysseus wrote:
> > Does that mean it stopped working?
>
> For a torpedo, yes, it would be indicative of either a malfunction or
> poor aiming -- there are relevant quotations in a post of Peter D's in
> this thread -- AFAICT because the guidance or propulsion systems don't
> work properly on the surface, and a strike below the target's waterline
> will be the most effective.

Also, of course, when a torpedo leaves the water it becomes visible, and
if the crew of the target ship are vigilant they can take evasive action
and/or fire upon the torpedo (and maybe also upon the vessel that fired
it).

A torpedo that broaches does not necessarily "stop working", as such, but
the fact that it has broached may well render it ineffective.

The passage quoted, though:

... pressuring them to fire their torpedoes prematurely at
10,500 yards distance ... The torpedoes were reaching end-of-run

as they approached their target, and broached.

suggests that the torpedoes broached because they reached the limit of
their range and, their power source being used up, they came to the
surface and broached. The broaching is a symptom of the fact that the
torpedoes had stopped working, rather than the cause.

--
Cheers,
Daniel.

[Mike L]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:55:48 +0100, Daniel James <dan...@me.invalid>
wrote:

I know nothing of torpedoes, but I'd have thought that an
old-fashioned unguided one would probably have missed at such extreme
range, anyway. My friend Casio says it's all but six miles.

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

Could a submarine of the period even _see_ that far? Would the upper
works of even a large warship be visible that far beyond a three-mile
horizon?

--
Mike.

[Robin Bignall]

Certainly not from a periscope just a foot or three above the surface, I
would have thought.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England (BrE)

[Robert Bannister]

Of course, it's much harder to aim a whale.
--
Robert Bannister

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Mike L skrev:

> Could a submarine of the period even _see_ that far? Would the upper
> works of even a large warship be visible that far beyond a three-mile
> horizon?

If computer games can be trusted as reliable information: Yes,
they could. The ships in "Silent Hunter" can be seen through the
periscope at a distance of 5 miles, and they can be identified
when using zoom.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Fran Jones]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:20:57 +0100, Mike L wrote:

> I'd have thought that an old-fashioned unguided one would
> probably have missed at such extreme range

I think they fire a whole bunch of torpedoes, so, that you
have to evade a slew of them all at the same time.

The goal would be to get you no matter which way you turn.

At least that's how *I* would broach the subject.

[Mark Brader]

Mike Lyle:

> Could a submarine of the period even _see_ that far? Would the upper
> works of even a large warship be visible that far beyond a three-mile
> horizon?

What three-mile horizon?

The horizon distance for an object of height H is sqrt(2*R*H), where
R is the radius of curvature of the Earth at the applicable location.
Taking R = 3,960 miles for simplicity, at a range of 10,500 yards, an
object only (10,500 yards)^2/(2*3,960 miles) = less than 24 feet high
will be visible even from a viewpoint right on the surface.

--
Mark Brader I "need to know" *everything*! How else
Toronto can I judge whether I need to know it?
m...@vex.net -- Lynn & Jay: YES, PRIME MINISTER

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Envo]

"Daniel James" <dan...@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:VA.000007e...@me.invalid...

Which raises the question - if a torpedo 'stops working', i.e.runs
out of forward propulsion, would it sink, being heavier than water, or
would it float, in the manner of a boat?

Weaponry experts to the torpedo room, please.

Envo

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Envo skrev:

> Weaponry experts to the torpedo room, please.

Google and (in this case) Wikipedia may do:

Mark 46 lightweight torpedo is the smallest torpedo used by the
US navy:

Length: 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m)
Weight: 508 lb (231 kg)
Diameter: 12.75 in (324 mm)

(3.24 dm)^2 * 2.59 dm = 271.9 dm3 = 271.9 liter.
With a weight of 231 kg it is able to float with the body showing
about 16 cms above water.

Mark 50 lightweight:

Length: 9.5 ft (2.9 m)
Weight: approx. 800 lb (360 kg)
Diameter: 12.75 in (0.324 m)

(3.24 dm)^2 * 29 dm = 304,4 liter
With a weight of 360 kg it would sink.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Leslie Danks]

Surely a torpedo will be designed with neutral boyancy in mind. Otherwise,
you'd have to expend energy to prevent it sinking (or to prevent it
broaching at an inappropriate moment).

--
Les (BrE)
But I'm no expert.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Bertel Lund Hansen skrev:

> With a weight of 231 kg it is able to float with the body showing
> about 16 cms above water.

Those 16 cms are not correct, but it will show above water.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Mike L]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:30:02 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Mike Lyle:
>> Could a submarine of the period even _see_ that far? Would the upper
>> works of even a large warship be visible that far beyond a three-mile
>> horizon?
>
>What three-mile horizon?

Three miles is generally taken as a typical range to the horizon from
eye-level, though in fact it's rather less. Hence the traditional
"three-mile limit".

>
>The horizon distance for an object of height H is sqrt(2*R*H), where
>R is the radius of curvature of the Earth at the applicable location.
>Taking R = 3,960 miles for simplicity, at a range of 10,500 yards, an
>object only (10,500 yards)^2/(2*3,960 miles) = less than 24 feet high
>will be visible even from a viewpoint right on the surface.

OK. On reflection, I see that if I can see your eyes from about three
miles, you can also see mine, and that's close to six miles in total.
A fortiori, I'd be able to see quite a bit more of a ship at the same
distance.

This is all bollocks, of course: the Bible makes it pretty clear that
the Earth is flat.

--
Mike.

[Mark Brader]

Mike Lyle:
>>> Could a submarine of the period even _see_ that far? Would the upper
>>> works of even a large warship be visible that far beyond a three-mile
>>> horizon?

Mark Brader:
>> What three-mile horizon?

Mike Lyle:

> Three miles is generally taken as a typical range to the horizon from

> eye-level...

And is therefore irrelevant.

> Hence the traditional "three-mile limit".

I usually see that cited as originating from the maximum range of
old-time artillery.

>> The horizon distance for an object of height H is sqrt(2*R*H), where
>> R is the radius of curvature of the Earth at the applicable location.
>> Taking R = 3,960 miles for simplicity, at a range of 10,500 yards, an
>> object only (10,500 yards)^2/(2*3,960 miles) = less than 24 feet high
>> will be visible even from a viewpoint right on the surface.

> OK. On reflection, I see that if I can see your eyes from about three
> miles, you can also see mine, and that's close to six miles in total.

Right.

> A fortiori, I'd be able to see quite a bit more of a ship at the same
> distance.

Yes, but again, eye level is irrelevant.

> This is all bollocks, of course: the Bible makes it pretty clear that
> the Earth is flat.

Ah, right. And, similarly, pi = 3.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | An actual human would feel guilt in this situation.
m...@vex.net | -- Scott Adams: Dilbert

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Mike L skrev:

> This is all bollocks, of course: the Bible makes it pretty clear that
> the Earth is flat.

Where? Do you have a quote?

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Skitt]

Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Mike L skrev:

>> This is all bollocks, of course: the Bible makes it pretty clear that
>> the Earth is flat.
>
> Where? Do you have a quote?
>

Read all about it at
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/main.html

[Mike L]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:32:10 -0700, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Mike L skrev:
>
>>> This is all bollocks, of course: the Bible makes it pretty clear that
>>> the Earth is flat.
>>
>> Where? Do you have a quote?
>>
>Read all about it at
>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

And when Satan wanted Jesus to see all the cities of the earth, he
took him to a high place. Not too effective on a spheroid.

--
Mike.

[Leslie Danks]

You mean there are cities on the Other Side?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:53:41 +0200, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
wrote:

Like the alien settlements on the Other Side of the Moon.

Those settlers worked very hard to synchronise the rotation of the Moon
with its orbit round the Earth so that the wouldn't be seen by us.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Robert Bannister]

On 25/07/13 5:32 AM, Skitt wrote:
> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Mike L skrev:
>
>>> This is all bollocks, of course: the Bible makes it pretty clear that
>>> the Earth is flat.
>>
>> Where? Do you have a quote?
>>
> Read all about it at
> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
>

How disappointing. I thought it was going on to say that rakija was
heaven. Turns out it was Hebrew for "firmament".

rakı (Turkish) and variously rakia, rakiya, rakija is the word for
aniseed-flavoured alcohol from Greece to Iran.

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 5:32:10 PM UTC-4, Skitt wrote:
> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>
> > Mike L skrev:
>
>
>
> >> This is all bollocks, of course: the Bible makes it pretty clear that
>
> >> the Earth is flat.
>
> >
>
> > Where? Do you have a quote?
>
> >
>
> Read all about it at
>
> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Not all that long ago I mentioned I had a guidebook for arguing against
creationists but that it wasn't on the shelf I expected it to be on. It
turned up, but then NGG wouldn't Search the message I mentioned it in.
So here's the reference at the next opportune moment:

Mark Isaak, The Counter-Creationism Handbook ((Berkeley & Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 2005, 2007). Pp. xxxii+330.

[Mac]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:08:22 +0000 (UTC), "Angel A."
<ang...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:04:58 -0700, Mac wrote:
>
>>>> Does that mean it stopped working?
>>>
>>>The word itself doesn't indicate or imply that one way or the other. You
>>>must ask the OP for any context in this particular case.
>>
>> I expect that their might be some tension around that question.
>
>Well, the context was this historical web page about the USS Johnston
>where my late uncle served in WWII:

Another context is wordplay. "Broke" = "it stopped working." Surface
tension jokes are sure to follow.

> http://battlestations.eu/index.php/en/our-encyclopedia/naval-battles/89-battle-off-samar?start=3
>
>The "implication" is that it "ran out of steam"

Ummm, literally. "Wet heater" torpedoes run on steam.

>when it broached,

Before, surely, if it broached because it didn't have the power to
control itself.

>and, by context, that torpedo certainly didn't hit the USS Johnston.

It wouldn't have anyway. It was being aimed elsewhere. Why "it," by
the way, for the combined torpedoes

>"Two hours into the attack, Captain Evans aboard the Johnston spotted
>a line of four Japanese destroyers led by the light cruiser Yahagi
>making a torpedo attack on the carriers and moved to intercept.
>Johnston fired and scored hits on them, pressuring them to fire
>their torpedoes prematurely at 10,500 yards distance at 09:15.
>The torpedoes were reaching end-of-run as they approached their
>target, and broached."

"Their target" near which they broached, was "the carriers" in the
third line above.

[rcp...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 22 July 2013 11:29:36 UTC+2, Leslie Danks wrote:

>
> Dictionary.com also has two intransitive meanings:

>
> [quote]
>
> verb (used without object)
> 13.
> Nautical . (of a sailing vessel) to veer to windward.

Specifically, to do so in an uncontrolled manner, generally as a result of the vessel trying to carry too much sail for the wind conditions. Often an indicator that the people in charge of the vessel are in conditions beyond their skill level, or are behaving somewhat recklessly.

Robin

[Bill McCray]

I don't know if this has been mentioned or not. I've often heard of
bringing up a subject as "broaching" the subject, which appears to be
very similar to the meaning with the torpedo.

Bill in Kentucky

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

That sense of "broach" has been around for a few years.

OED:
broach, v.1

6. To give vent or publicity to; to give out; to begin conversation
or discussion about, introduce, moot. (The chief current sense.)

1579 L. Tomson tr. J. Calvin Serm. Epist. S. Paule to Timothie &
Titus 49/1 To broch a newe and straunge doctrine.
1593 R. Hooker Of Lawes Eccl. Politie Pref. 26 To broach my
priuate conceipt..I should be loth.
1614 T. Adams Diuells Banket ii. 52 Euery Nouelist..must broach
new opinions.
....

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

[John Varela]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:05:16 UTC, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
wrote:

There's more to it than that because the running depth can be set.

--
John Varela

[Mike L]

Mark is also very strong on the world's many flood myths, and how
incompatible they often are in spite of the literalists' claims; but I
don't know if he's published separately on that.

--
Mike

[Mac]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:57:56 +0000 (UTC), Fran Jones
<Fran...@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:20:57 +0100, Mike L wrote:
>
>> I'd have thought that an old-fashioned unguided one would
>> probably have missed at such extreme range
>
>I think they fire a whole bunch of torpedoes, so, that you
>have to evade a slew of them all at the same time.

A "fan," yes. And, of course, if attacking a fleet of ships, missing
one might cause you to hit another.

Regarding some of the other questions floating, so to speak, about:

Whether a torpedo should have a positive, negative, or neutral
buoyancy is a somewhat vexed question. A torpedo which floats after
it has made its run is easier to pick up for re-use in training, but
in wartime it is vulnerable to capture and analysis, and poses the
risks that any untethered, free-floating mine would. Negative
buoyancy is much safer in this regard. Either way, anything but
neutral buoyancy requires energy to keep it from surfacing or sinking,
and that comes out of potential range. (This is further complicated
because some types of torpedoes get lighter as they operate.) Navies
now use specialized training torpedoes that mimic normal operations,
but dump ballast, inflate life saver rings, or set off locator beacons
on impact or end of run. (Some of the inflatable are, frankly, pretty
goofy looking.)

The attack in question was by destroyers, not submarines, with both
the observers and the targets well above the surface, and many torpedo
attacks were made by surfaced rather than submerged submarines quite
late in the way. Even if submerged, a periscope can still be twice a
man's eye-height above the water. It's also worth remembering that in
those pre-environmentalist days, ships and sailors both smoked
heavily. Even today, it's possible to track common shipping lanes by
what bunker C et. al. put in the air; in WWII a smoke plume could
pinpoint a ship otherwise over the horizon.

10,000 yards was not at all an extreme range, at least not for the
Japanese. The type 93 could handle tens of miles at its slower
speeds. Obviously, whether a particular target would still be in
place is another question, but particular battles, land and see, often
occur precisely because of limited scope for movement.

Anthony "Citeless Wonder" McCafferty

[Leslie Danks]

Presumably with constant adjustment to neutral buoyancy at the depth
required. At a guess, buoyancy will increase as fuel is used up This could
be compensated by taking on an equal amount of water ballast. I suppose I
could look it up, but guessing is more fun and might drive an expert from
cover.

[Robert Bannister]

Perhaps more in the way of breaking the ice than broaching the ocean
surface.
--
Robert Bannister

[Mac]

Does that mean the ice won't cool anymore?

Anthony "or does it stop floating?" McCafferty

[Odysseus]

In article <51f18dff$0$12580$91ce...@newsreader03.highway.telekom.at>,

Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at> wrote:

> John Varela wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:05:16 UTC, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
> > wrote:

<snip>

> >> Surely a torpedo will be designed with neutral boyancy in mind.
> >> Otherwise, you'd have to expend energy to prevent it sinking (or to
> >> prevent it broaching at an inappropriate moment).
> >
> > There's more to it than that because the running depth can be set.
>
> Presumably with constant adjustment to neutral buoyancy at the depth
> required. At a guess, buoyancy will increase as fuel is used up This could
> be compensated by taking on an equal amount of water ballast. I suppose I
> could look it up, but guessing is more fun and might drive an expert from
> cover.

My guess is that the depth would be controlled by adjusting the
torpedo's attitude (pitch) with fins, as a submarine does with its
diving planes, rather than by altering its buoyancy -- which submarines
do as well, but ISTM not for minor depth adjustments.

I don't think the fuel would contribute very significantly to the
overall mass, which must be on the order of two or three tonnes. And
battery-powered models don't consume fuel as such (nor do they bubble
telltale exhaust).

--
Odysseus

[Nick Spalding]

Odysseus wrote, in
<odysseus1479-at-4B...@news.eternal-september.org>
on Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:02:27 -0600:

> In article <51f18dff$0$12580$91ce...@newsreader03.highway.telekom.at>,
> Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at> wrote:
>
> > John Varela wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:05:16 UTC, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
> > > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >> Surely a torpedo will be designed with neutral boyancy in mind.
> > >> Otherwise, you'd have to expend energy to prevent it sinking (or to
> > >> prevent it broaching at an inappropriate moment).
> > >
> > > There's more to it than that because the running depth can be set.
> >
> > Presumably with constant adjustment to neutral buoyancy at the depth
> > required. At a guess, buoyancy will increase as fuel is used up This could
> > be compensated by taking on an equal amount of water ballast. I suppose I
> > could look it up, but guessing is more fun and might drive an expert from
> > cover.
>
> My guess is that the depth would be controlled by adjusting the
> torpedo's attitude (pitch) with fins, as a submarine does with its
> diving planes, rather than by altering its buoyancy -- which submarines
> do as well, but ISTM not for minor depth adjustments.

When I had a trip in an RN submarine in 1955 I was told that opinion
differed as to whether the boat should be trimmed a tiny bit light and
held down with the planes or a bit heavy and held up. Some officers did
one and some the other, nobody tried to get the trim exact.

> I don't think the fuel would contribute very significantly to the
> overall mass, which must be on the order of two or three tonnes. And
> battery-powered models don't consume fuel as such (nor do they bubble
> telltale exhaust).
--

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Anton Shepelev]

Nick Spalding:

> When I had a trip in an RN submarine in 1955 I was
> told that opinion differed as to whether the boat
> should be trimmed a tiny bit light and held down
> with the planes or a bit heavy and held up. Some
> officers did one and some the other, nobody tried
> to get the trim exact.

An exact trim is physically as impossible as an ex-
act positioning of the depth-control plane, with the
difference of the former requiring expenditure of a
precious resource -- complressed air.

Similarly, one can't ride a bike along a perfectly
straight line. I can ride it on the top of a curb,
but it has a finite width allowing to keep balance
by small swerves.

The higher the speed, the easier it is to sustain a
bike's or a sumbarine's balance, because the re-
sponse to the controls is quicker and stronger.

In the early days, the skill of the planes' operator
was cruicial in preventing the submarine from
broaching after launching a torpedoe.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:02:27 -0600, Odysseus
<odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:

>In article <51f18dff$0$12580$91ce...@newsreader03.highway.telekom.at>,
> Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at> wrote:
>
>> John Varela wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:05:16 UTC, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
>> > wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >> Surely a torpedo will be designed with neutral boyancy in mind.
>> >> Otherwise, you'd have to expend energy to prevent it sinking (or to
>> >> prevent it broaching at an inappropriate moment).
>> >
>> > There's more to it than that because the running depth can be set.
>>
>> Presumably with constant adjustment to neutral buoyancy at the depth
>> required. At a guess, buoyancy will increase as fuel is used up This could
>> be compensated by taking on an equal amount of water ballast. I suppose I
>> could look it up, but guessing is more fun and might drive an expert from
>> cover.
>
>My guess is that the depth would be controlled by adjusting the
>torpedo's attitude (pitch) with fins, as a submarine does with its
>diving planes, rather than by altering its buoyancy -- which submarines
>do as well, but ISTM not for minor depth adjustments.
>

This describes the mechanical control system for an earlier type of
torpedo. Depth was known by measuring the water pressure. Depth was
controlled by adjusting the planes, the up-down equivalent of left-right
rudders.
http://www.submarineresearch.com/selected_bulletins/torpedo_gyros.html

>I don't think the fuel would contribute very significantly to the
>overall mass, which must be on the order of two or three tonnes. And
>battery-powered models don't consume fuel as such (nor do they bubble
>telltale exhaust).

--

[Leslie Danks]

Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Nick Spalding:
>
>> When I had a trip in an RN submarine in 1955 I was
>> told that opinion differed as to whether the boat
>> should be trimmed a tiny bit light and held down
>> with the planes or a bit heavy and held up. Some
>> officers did one and some the other, nobody tried
>> to get the trim exact.
>
> An exact trim is physically as impossible as an ex-
> act positioning of the depth-control plane, with the
> difference of the former requiring expenditure of a
> precious resource -- complressed air.
>
> Similarly, one can't ride a bike along a perfectly
> straight line. I can ride it on the top of a curb,
> but it has a finite width allowing to keep balance
> by small swerves.

Don't try this at home:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19zFlPah-o>

> The higher the speed, the easier it is to sustain a
> bike's or a sumbarine's balance, because the re-
> sponse to the controls is quicker and stronger.
>
> In the early days, the skill of the planes' operator
> was cruicial in preventing the submarine from
> broaching after launching a torpedoe.
>

--

[Anton Shepelev]

Leslie Danks:

> > Similarly, one can't ride a bike along a per-

> > fectly straight line. I can ride it on the top
> > of a curb, but it has a finite width allowing

> > [one] to keep balance by small swerves.

>
> Don't try this at home:
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19zFlPah-o>

You don't say. My cycling style is rather relaxed,
and I never perform any tricks for the sake of it.
I just cruise the crumbling roads and overgrown
pathways of nighted Podol'sk, even through the rain
and snow. I may ride fast but never sportfully.

Speaking of the trick, there's a psychological ef-
fect to it: it is easy to ride on a road surface
marking, harder to do the same on a curb of the same
width and real scary on some elevated rail.

[Envo]

"John Varela" <newl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-FKwtVCSg34Hr@localhost...

'Running' implies it is still moving. I was questioning what happens
when it runs out of forward motion.

Envo

[Leslie Danks]

Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Leslie Danks:
>
>> > Similarly, one can't ride a bike along a per-
>> > fectly straight line. I can ride it on the top
>> > of a curb, but it has a finite width allowing
>> > [one] to keep balance by small swerves.
>>
>> Don't try this at home:
>>
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19zFlPah-o>
>
> You don't say. My cycling style is rather relaxed,
> and I never perform any tricks for the sake of it.
> I just cruise the crumbling roads and overgrown
> pathways of nighted Podol'sk, even through the rain
> and snow. I may ride fast but never sportfully.
>
> Speaking of the trick, there's a psychological ef-
> fect to it: it is easy to ride on a road surface
> marking, harder to do the same on a curb of the same
> width and real scary on some elevated rail.

Yes, and the same is true of walking -- along the top of a wall, for
example. I wonder if the effect is solely psychological, or if the body's
balancing mechanism can't cope properly with ground dropping away on both
sides. In any case, practice does bring improvement -- with luck, before one
topples off a mountain ridge into the scree below.

[Mark Brader]

Bertel Lund Hansen:
> Mark 46 lightweight torpedo is the smallest torpedo used by the
> US navy:
>
> Length: 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m)
> Weight: 508 lb (231 kg)
> Diameter: 12.75 in (324 mm)
>
> (3.24 dm)^2 * 2.59 dm = 271.9 dm3 = 271.9 liter.

The second dm should be m, but the answer is right. However, it's
the right answer according to the wrong formula -- this is the volume
of a box with rectangular sides that encloses the torpedo. Since the
thing is cylindrical, you need to multiply by pi/4... giving 213.5
liters and making the torpedo denser than water after all.
--
Mark Brader | "The problem with waiting for a 'smoking gun' is
Toronto | that it means the gun has already been fired."
m...@vex.net | --Michael Chance

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Mike L]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:11:55 +0400, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:

>Nick Spalding:
>
>> When I had a trip in an RN submarine in 1955 I was
>> told that opinion differed as to whether the boat
>> should be trimmed a tiny bit light and held down
>> with the planes or a bit heavy and held up. Some
>> officers did one and some the other, nobody tried
>> to get the trim exact.
>
>An exact trim is physically as impossible as an ex-
>act positioning of the depth-control plane, with the
>difference of the former requiring expenditure of a
>precious resource -- complressed air.

[...]

>
>In the early days, the skill of the planes' operator
>was cruicial in preventing the submarine from
>broaching after launching a torpedoe.

Hence the dreaded "rooster tail". There's actually a picture of the
tail kicked up when that one of the Jap midgets in Sydney Harbour
launched its torpedo. (I may have been present at the time, though
ashore and as a zygote.)

--
Mike.

[Anton Shepelev]

Leslie Danks:

> > Speaking of the trick, there's a psychological

> > effect to it: it is easy to ride on a road sur-

> > face marking, harder to do the same on a curb of
> > the same width and real scary on some elevated
> > rail.
>
> Yes, and the same is true of walking -- along the
> top of a wall, for example.

[obAEU] Along? I thought that meant beside and by a
parallel course, not literally on top of something.

> I wonder if the effect is solely psychological, or

> if the body's balancing mechanism can't cope prop-

> erly with ground dropping away on both sides.

I think it's not purely psychological, although I
cannot suggest the relative importance of the physi-
ological effect.

When standing on one foot, it is easy to keep bal-
ance without any perceptible motions -- by using the
foot itself, but only until one closes his eyes!
Whence it seems that the visual system participates
in the balance-keeping NFB loop, and not without a
reason, for a smallest deviation of the viewing
point immediately causes a shift of the perceived
image thereby allowing a quick and exact reaction.
Now, taking into account that according to the laws
of Perspective the magnitude (or what normal noun
would fit?) of the shift is roughtly inversely
propotional to the distance to the object, it is on-
ly natural to conjecture that the ability to keep
balance depends on the distance to the nearest ob-
ject capable of being used as such an "anchor
point", and the farther the object, the closer the
situaltion gets to balancing with closed eyes.

> In any case, practice does bring improve-
> ment -- with luck, before one topples off a moun-

> tain ridge into the scree below.

Better practise on road markings :-) Or balance on
the two hind legs legs of your office chair like I
do, but make sure to clutch at the table at the ear-
liers sensation of falling uncontrollably back!

> Followup-To: Choose,an,appropriate,group,to,redirect,replies...

Why? It has started with both groups and how can I
prefer one to the other now?

[Leslie Danks]

Sorry -- sometimes my newsreader drops that in (I know not why). I usually
deleted it but this time I must have forgotten. Please ignore it!

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:30:49 +0400, Anton Shepelev <anto...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Leslie Danks:
>
>> > Speaking of the trick, there's a psychological
>> > effect to it: it is easy to ride on a road sur-
>> > face marking, harder to do the same on a curb of
>> > the same width and real scary on some elevated
>> > rail.
>>
>> Yes, and the same is true of walking -- along the
>> top of a wall, for example.
>
>[obAEU] Along? I thought that meant beside and by a
>parallel course, not literally on top of something.
>

"Along" can be used to mean literally on something. The context will
usually make clear, or give a hint, when "along" is being used in that
way.

"Driving along the road" and "walking along the path" mean actually
driving on the road and walking on the path. If we want to make clear
that the driving and walking were not actually on the road or path we
could use something like: "driving alongside/beside the road" and "walk
alongside/beside the path".

"Walking along a wall" can mean walking next to (alongside or beside)
the wall. "Walking along the top of a wall" can really only mean walking
on top of the wall.

[Anton Shepelev]

Leslie Danks:

> > > Followup-To: Choose,an,appropriate,group,to,redirect,replies...
> >
> > Why? It has started with both groups and how
> > can I prefer one to the other now?
>
> Sorry -- sometimes my newsreader drops that in (I
> know not why). I usually deleted it but this time
> I must have forgotten. Please ignore it!

According to:

http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/bZBuSrpGd4GW5CLGaFZ9

it was fixed back in 2010:

Previous changes to the composer already
remove the automatic modification of the
followup-to headrs: The current and future be-
haviour is not to automatically set/change the
followup-to headers.
[...]
Warning against posting to more than on groups
without setting the followup-to will remain.

If your version is newer you might report it, or up-
grade otherwise.

[Anton Shepelev]

Peter Duncanson:

> > > > Yes, and the same is true of walk-

> > > > ing -- along the top of a wall, for example.
> > >
> > > >[obAEU] Along? I thought that meant beside
> > > and by a >parallel course, not literally on
> > > top of something.
> >

> > "Along" can be used to mean literally on some-

> > thing. The context will usually make clear, or
> > give a hint, when "along" is being used in that
> > way.
>
> "Driving along the road" and "walking along the

> path" mean actually driving on the road and walk-

> ing on the path. If we want to make clear that
> the driving and walking were not actually on the
> road or path we could use something like: "driving

> alongside/beside the road" and "walk alongside/be-

> side the path".
>
> "Walking along a wall" can mean walking next to
> (alongside or beside) the wall. "Walking along
> the top of a wall" can really only mean walking on
> top of the wall.

Thank you, Peter. How would you read: "ride a bike
along a curb"? Isn't it ambiguous? I do ride along
the curb when both on a road and on a pedestrian
precinct, not to say when doing my trick of riding
on the very curb...

[Leslie Danks]

Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Leslie Danks:
>
>> > > Followup-To: Choose,an,appropriate,group,to,redirect,replies...
>> >
>> > Why? It has started with both groups and how
>> > can I prefer one to the other now?
>>
>> Sorry -- sometimes my newsreader drops that in (I
>> know not why). I usually deleted it but this time
>> I must have forgotten. Please ignore it!
>
> According to:
>
> http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/bZBuSrpGd4GW5CLGaFZ9
>
> it was fixed back in 2010:
>
> Previous changes to the composer already
> remove the automatic modification of the
> followup-to headrs: The current and future be-
> haviour is not to automatically set/change the
> followup-to headers.
> [...]
> Warning against posting to more than on groups
> without setting the followup-to will remain.

The above is the bit that did it - IOW it's a feature that is triggered by
posts to more than one group (in this case alt.english.usage and
alt.usage.english). Simply deleting the message by entering the input field
results in the message going to all the original groups.

> If your version is newer you might report it, or up-
> grade otherwise.

--

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:40:07 +0400, Anton Shepelev <anto...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Peter Duncanson:
>
>> > > > Yes, and the same is true of walk-
>> > > > ing -- along the top of a wall, for example.
>> > >
>> > > >[obAEU] Along? I thought that meant beside
>> > > and by a >parallel course, not literally on
>> > > top of something.
>> >
>> > "Along" can be used to mean literally on some-
>> > thing. The context will usually make clear, or
>> > give a hint, when "along" is being used in that
>> > way.
>>
>> "Driving along the road" and "walking along the
>> path" mean actually driving on the road and walk-
>> ing on the path. If we want to make clear that
>> the driving and walking were not actually on the
>> road or path we could use something like: "driving
>> alongside/beside the road" and "walk alongside/be-
>> side the path".
>>
>> "Walking along a wall" can mean walking next to
>> (alongside or beside) the wall. "Walking along
>> the top of a wall" can really only mean walking on
>> top of the wall.
>
>Thank you, Peter. How would you read: "ride a bike
>along a curb"? Isn't it ambiguous?

Yes. It is ambiguous.

> I do ride along
>the curb when both on a road and on a pedestrian
>precinct, not to say when doing my trick of riding
>on the very curb...

--

[Anton Shepelev]

Leslie Danks:

> > it was fixed back in 2010:
> >
> > Previous changes to the composer already
> > remove the automatic modification of the

> > followup-to headers: The current and future
> > behaviour is not to automatically set/change

> > the followup-to headers.
> > [...]
> > Warning against posting to more than on
> > groups without setting the followup-to will
> > remain.
> >

> The above is the bit that did it -- IOW it's a

> feature that is triggered by posts to more than
> one group (in this case alt.english.usage and alt.
> usage.english). Simply deleting the message by
> entering the input field results in the message
> going to all the original groups.

But they say it should never happen:

Previous changes to the composer already
remove the automatic modification of the

followup-to headers

[Leslie Danks]

Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Leslie Danks:
>
>> > it was fixed back in 2010:
>> >
>> > Previous changes to the composer already
>> > remove the automatic modification of the
>> > followup-to headers: The current and future
>> > behaviour is not to automatically set/change
>> > the followup-to headers.
>> > [...]
>> > Warning against posting to more than on
>> > groups without setting the followup-to will
>> > remain.
>> >
>> The above is the bit that did it -- IOW it's a
>> feature that is triggered by posts to more than
>> one group (in this case alt.english.usage and alt.
>> usage.english). Simply deleting the message by
>> entering the input field results in the message
>> going to all the original groups.
>
> But they say it should never happen:
>
> Previous changes to the composer already
> remove the automatic modification of the
> followup-to headers

Maybe this is meant to apply only to articles which already have follow-ups
set to something. If there is no follow-up set and the message is cross-
posted, the advisory message appears (as demonstrated by what actually
happened).

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:40:07 AM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Thank you, Peter. How would you read: "ride a bike
> along a curb"? Isn't it ambiguous? I do ride along
> the curb when both on a road and on a pedestrian
> precinct, not to say when doing my trick of riding
> on the very curb...

Depends what you mean by "curb." It's used differently in different
English-speaking communities.

[Anton Shepelev]

Leslie Danks:

> > But they say it should never happen:
> >
> > Previous changes to the composer already

> > remove the automatic modification of the fol-

> > lowup-to headers
>
> Maybe this is meant to apply only to articles
> which already have follow-ups set to something. If
> there is no follow-up set and the message is
> cross- posted, the advisory message appears (as
> demonstrated by what actually happened).

Well, I don't think so. Insering a text into
Followup-To: that is not a list of newsgroups is by
itself incorrect, and doing so without the user's
explicit command is rude...

[Leslie Danks]

Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Leslie Danks:
>
>> > But they say it should never happen:
>> >
>> > Previous changes to the composer already
>> > remove the automatic modification of the fol-
>> > lowup-to headers
>>
>> Maybe this is meant to apply only to articles
>> which already have follow-ups set to something. If
>> there is no follow-up set and the message is
>> cross- posted, the advisory message appears (as
>> demonstrated by what actually happened).
>
> Well, I don't think so. Insering a text into
> Followup-To: that is not a list of newsgroups is by
> itself incorrect, and doing so without the user's
> explicit command is rude...

Ican only tell you what I see. If replying to an article posted to only one
group, the Followup-To field in Composer is empty. If replying to a cross-
posted article, the Followup-To field contains the message "Choose an
appropriate group to redirect replies...", to the right of which (I now
notice) is a drop-down selection box containing the groups the original
article was posted to. Placing the cursor in the Followup-To field
immediately erases the message in it.

[Anton Shepelev]

Lewis:

> I believe torpedos are designed to have neutral
> buoyancy when running, but I suspect that whether
> they sink or float when they stop running varies
> by specific type (or possibly time period).
>
> On a guess, I'd think older torpedos float and
> newer ones sink.

Only "training" torpedoes have positive buoyancy,
for the reasons of re-use. Real war torpedoes must
sink when not in motion, so as the enemy will not
re-use them and friendly ships won't accidentally
run into them. This is what I read in a 1934 issue
of "Technology for the Youth":

http://tinyurl.com/4yg9r3m
[Russian]

[Joy Beeson]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:40:07 +0400, Anton Shepelev
<anto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> How would you read: "ride a bike
> along a curb"?

I'd be too frantic wondering how much clearance the rider was giving
the extremely-dangerous curb to fret about the meaning of "along".

Which, I suppose, means that I'm reading it as "ride close to the
curb."

Hrm. Could be riding on the sidewalk side of the curb; falling off
isn't 100% certain to cause a crash the way steering the bike out from
under you is, but only the utterly daft and children under twelve ride
on sidewalks.

--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at comcast dot net http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

[Robert Bannister]

On 31/07/13 8:26 AM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:40:07 +0400, Anton Shepelev
> <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How would you read: "ride a bike
>> along a curb"?
>
> I'd be too frantic wondering how much clearance the rider was giving
> the extremely-dangerous curb to fret about the meaning of "along".
>
> Which, I suppose, means that I'm reading it as "ride close to the
> curb."
>
> Hrm. Could be riding on the sidewalk side of the curb; falling off
> isn't 100% certain to cause a crash the way steering the bike out from
> under you is, but only the utterly daft and children under twelve ride
> on sidewalks.
>

In the city these days, you'd be daft to ride on the road if there's no
cycle lane.

--
Robert Bannister

[Joy Beeson]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:40:18 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

> In the city these days, you'd be daft to ride on the road if there's no
> cycle lane.

Ob AUE: in the city, you have to ride in the street, not the road.

"Cycle lanes" are nearly always a big mistake. Even their proponents
say that the main purpose of them is to lure people into riding in
situations they don't know how to handle.

If you have to take to the sidewalk, dismount and *walk*.

Only a couple of weeks ago, I damn near hit a kid who zoomed out of a
sidewalk into my path while I was checking for traffic in the cross
street. He zoomed across the street and into another sidewalk,
entirely unaware of how close he'd come to booking helicopter rides
for both of us.

[Anton Shepelev]

Robert Bannister:

> In the city these days, you'd be daft to ride on
> the road if there's no cycle lane.

There's no cycle lanes in my town, and I use the
road when no sidewalk is availbalde or when it is so
full of fresh untrodden snow as to prevent riding,
and it is hard even to walk where can't ride. Once,
when the think and dense mixture of snow, water and
dust drained all my energy I dismounted and wanted
to walk, but the path between the snowdrifts was so
narrow that either I had to plunge through one or
the bike, so I stood gasping for a while in the mid-
dle of that desolate path.

There's no hope for me to keep pace even with busses
for long enough, so I take to the left side of the
road in order to see all approaching vehicles be-
forehand.

When a teenager, I used to race on my Soviet single-
speeder closely behind busses at about 40 km/h
availing myself of a lowered air resistance, but
once upon a time a bus let a deep poothhole between
its wells, while I ran right into it, which taught
me.

As for the bike, I had to true its front weel, re-
place the broken stem and straighten the front tube
(for steel frames are bendable), which I failed to
do perfectly and no longer could ride it without
holding at least at one handlebar.

[John Varela]

On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:16:19 UTC, Anton Shepelev
<anto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a deep poothhole

Forgive me if that was just a typo, but the word is "pothole". One o
and one h. "Poothole" really threw me; at first I thought you meant
that the bus had somehow cut one. That, however, would not likely
have bent the frame of your bike.

--
John Varela

[Robert Bannister]

On 1/08/13 10:05 AM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:40:18 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>> In the city these days, you'd be daft to ride on the road if there's no
>> cycle lane.
>
> Ob AUE: in the city, you have to ride in the street, not the road.

That is a purely USA idea, and I wonder how strictly is adhered to even
there. The most famous streets are the long highways the Romans built in
Britain.

>
> "Cycle lanes" are nearly always a big mistake. Even their proponents
> say that the main purpose of them is to lure people into riding in
> situations they don't know how to handle.
>
> If you have to take to the sidewalk, dismount and *walk*.

The problem is that the cycle lanes they invent by painting a white line
down the edge of the road are not wide enough and in many cases force
cyclists to ride over drains. Because not all road even have these
dangerous cycle lanes, I don't object to bikes being ridden on the
footpath so long as they are ridden with due care. A bit much to expect
from cyclist, especially from children, but there you are.

>
> Only a couple of weeks ago, I damn near hit a kid who zoomed out of a
> sidewalk into my path while I was checking for traffic in the cross
> street. He zoomed across the street and into another sidewalk,
> entirely unaware of how close he'd come to booking helicopter rides
> for both of us.
>

I don't think we can blame that on footpath/sidewalk/pavement riding.
Rather it is the kind of stupid, impulsive thing kids do.
--
Robert Bannister

[Anton Shepelev]

John Varela:

> > a deep poothhole
>
> Forgive me if that was just a typo, but the word
> is "pothole". One o and one h. "Poothole" really
> threw me; at first I thought you meant that the
> bus had somehow cut one. That, however, would not
> likely have bent the frame of your bike.

Yes, my memory distorted the word without notifying
me. I failed to notice its originating from "pot"
and "hole" when I first learned it here:

http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t4916.htm

That was seven years ago, and I was already working
on translating Star Heritage :-)

That pothole was deep enough to throw me out of the
bike. No bus could have cut it -- it had probably
been created by prolonged wear and tear witout any
repair.

The bus, uhhhhm, straddled it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, August 2, 2013 5:53:21 AM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>
> That pothole was deep enough to throw me out of the
> bike. No bus could have cut it -- it had probably
> been created by prolonged wear and tear witout any
> repair.
>
> The bus, uhhhhm, straddled it.

To throw you _off_ the bike. (You weren't inside the bike.)

Potholes are not caused by the wear and tear of heavy traffic, but by
subsidence of the ground beneath the pavement, which is caused by
freezing and thawing of the subsurface soil. They tend to appear suddenly.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

That is one mechanism. In my part of the world some potholes appear when
there has been no freezing and thawing of subsurface soil.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter T. Daniels]

"Pothole" must have a different sense there, then.

Here, they're ragged holes in the road surface with fairly sharp edges --
clearly not caused by gradual wear.

There are also "sinkholes," which can be much larger -- last year in
Florida one swallowed up an entire house -- but are also due to shifts
in underground water but not relating to freezing.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 06:21:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Friday, August 2, 2013 9:06:44 AM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 05:11:21 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >Potholes are not caused by the wear and tear of heavy traffic, but by
>> >subsidence of the ground beneath the pavement, which is caused by
>> >freezing and thawing of the subsurface soil. They tend to appear suddenly.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is one mechanism. In my part of the world some potholes appear when
>> there has been no freezing and thawing of subsurface soil.
>
>"Pothole" must have a different sense there, then.
>
>Here, they're ragged holes in the road surface with fairly sharp edges --
>clearly not caused by gradual wear.
>

They are as you describe but seem to be caused by "wear" in the sense
that part of the road surface breaks away from the rest. Perhaps a crack
develops and then spreads.

This article has an ilustration of a typical pothole (BrE). (The image
may have been chosen because the outline is heart-shaped.)
http://www.theguardian.com/leeds/2011/mar/17/leeds-councillors-conduct-pothole-survey

Here is another:
http://www.startrescue.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/pothole-300x225.jpg

And another:
http://www.ala.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/pothole.jpg

The most recent filling-in of potholes on my road was done with a magic
machine known as a Jetpatcher:

Jetpatcher demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEocO2PXIpk

Jetpatcher company website:
http://www.jetpatcher.co.uk/process/

>There are also "sinkholes," which can be much larger -- last year in
>Florida one swallowed up an entire house -- but are also due to shifts
>in underground water but not relating to freezing.

[Mac]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 06:21:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Friday, August 2, 2013 9:06:44 AM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 05:11:21 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >Potholes are not caused by the wear and tear of heavy traffic, but by
>> >subsidence of the ground beneath the pavement, which is caused by
>> >freezing and thawing of the subsurface soil. They tend to appear suddenly.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is one mechanism. In my part of the world some potholes appear when
>> there has been no freezing and thawing of subsurface soil.
>
>"Pothole" must have a different sense there, then.

No. Road potholes are overwhelmingly caused by lack of support from
below, yes, but freeze-thaw is only one mechanism for that.

Potholes can form because of ice lenses, but also because expansive
soils expanded; because of pumping of fines from wet soil -this is a
much bigger issue for rigid pavements than flexible ones, of course;
because of poorly tamped fill, sub-base, and base courses; because of
incompatible fill placement; because of crushing of porous aggregate -
early true "Tarmac" and other slag aggregates sometimes saw this, as
have tufas, pumices, sandstones and so on, especially when placed open
graded. Soils whose properties change with moisture or vibration, or
both, can cause them. Local water leaks can cause them, too,
sometimes is a manner that mimics a sinkhole.

There are a lot of ways to make a classic asphalt-surface or
unimproved surface pothole, and many of them can, and do, occur in
places that don't freeze, and so can't thaw. Some of the best -which
is to say worst - potholes I've seen were in Central America.

>Here, they're ragged holes in the road surface with fairly sharp edges --
>clearly not caused by gradual wear.

That looks a bit like a straw man; where did anyone write of "gradual
wear?" For that matter, even a classic ice-lens pothole often comes
on slowly, with several seasons accumulation of damage before actual
breakup of the surface. The edges of the final pothole are sometimes
eased from this. Also, the water entry that causes frost heaving or
fines loss is often a product of surface wear.

>
>There are also "sinkholes," which can be much larger -- last year in
>Florida one swallowed up an entire house -- but are also due to shifts
>in underground water but not relating to freezing.

Umm, no. Changes in water level are only one of the ways that
sinkholes open, and freeze-thaw can cause a plugged sinkhole to open.

ob. Pondian et alia:
Flexible pavement= asphalt surface = tarmac = asphaltic cement
Rigid pavement = portland cement concrete
Others available on request.

Anthony "BA & PE in CE" McCafferty

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 06:21:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Friday, August 2, 2013 9:06:44 AM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 05:11:21 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >Potholes are not caused by the wear and tear of heavy traffic, but by
>> >subsidence of the ground beneath the pavement, which is caused by
>> >freezing and thawing of the subsurface soil. They tend to appear suddenly.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is one mechanism. In my part of the world some potholes appear when
>> there has been no freezing and thawing of subsurface soil.
>
>"Pothole" must have a different sense there, then.
>
>Here, they're ragged holes in the road surface with fairly sharp edges --
>clearly not caused by gradual wear.

They are that here too, and they are not caused by freezing, because they
usually appear in late spring/early summer, with the first rains.

>There are also "sinkholes," which can be much larger -- last year in
>Florida one swallowed up an entire house -- but are also due to shifts
>in underground water but not relating to freezing.

Indeed, they also happen here, especially in places where there is limestone
or dolomite, which gets dissolved away by underground water. They can also be
caused by leaking water pipes.



--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, August 2, 2013 12:43:55 PM UTC-4, Mac wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 06:21:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

[potholes]

> >Here, they're ragged holes in the road surface with fairly sharp edges --
> >clearly not caused by gradual wear.
>
> That looks a bit like a straw man; where did anyone write of "gradual
> wear?"

He conjectured it was caused by the bus traffic.

> >There are also "sinkholes," which can be much larger -- last year in
> >Florida one swallowed up an entire house -- but are also due to shifts
> >in underground water but not relating to freezing.

>
> Umm, no. Changes in water level are only one of the ways that
> sinkholes open, and freeze-thaw can cause a plugged sinkhole to open.

Not in Florida.

[John Varela]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 00:45:35 UTC, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

> On 1/08/13 10:05 AM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:40:18 +0800, Robert Bannister
> > <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In the city these days, you'd be daft to ride on the road if there's no
> >> cycle lane.
> >
> > Ob AUE: in the city, you have to ride in the street, not the road.
>
> That is a purely USA idea, and I wonder how strictly is adhered to even
> there. The most famous streets are the long highways the Romans built in
> Britain.

Columbia Road NW is a major street in Washington, DC. The suburbs
are full of "roads" that were once rural but have been overtaken by
sprawl and are now choked with traffic. Spring Hill Road in the
Tyson's Corner (another rustic name) area is an example. It even has
a Metro station on the new Silver Line named after it. River Road in
Bethesda, MD is another example. Or Metairie Road in New Orleans.

> > "Cycle lanes" are nearly always a big mistake. Even their proponents
> > say that the main purpose of them is to lure people into riding in
> > situations they don't know how to handle.




> > If you have to take to the sidewalk, dismount and *walk*.
>
> The problem is that the cycle lanes they invent by painting a white line
> down the edge of the road are not wide enough and in many cases force
> cyclists to ride over drains. Because not all road even have these
> dangerous cycle lanes, I don't object to bikes being ridden on the
> footpath so long as they are ridden with due care. A bit much to expect
> from cyclist, especially from children, but there you are.
>

On what had been four lane divided avenues in residential areas of
Arlington, VA, the county has been painting solid white lines to
identify parking lanes and then another white line for a bike lane.
This leaves only one lane for traffic and the county is doing this
principally, I believe, to restrict traffic and slow it down.

> >
> > Only a couple of weeks ago, I damn near hit a kid who zoomed out of a
> > sidewalk into my path while I was checking for traffic in the cross
> > street. He zoomed across the street and into another sidewalk,
> > entirely unaware of how close he'd come to booking helicopter rides
> > for both of us.
> >
>
> I don't think we can blame that on footpath/sidewalk/pavement riding.
> Rather it is the kind of stupid, impulsive thing kids do.


--

John Varela

[John Varela]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:53:21 UTC, Anton Shepelev
<anto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John Varela:
>
> > > a deep poothhole
> >
> > Forgive me if that was just a typo, but the word
> > is "pothole". One o and one h. "Poothole" really

Errr, poothhole

> > threw me; at first I thought you meant that the
> > bus had somehow cut one. That, however, would not
> > likely have bent the frame of your bike.
>
> Yes, my memory distorted the word without notifying
> me. I failed to notice its originating from "pot"
> and "hole" when I first learned it here:
>
> http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t4916.htm
>
> That was seven years ago, and I was already working
> on translating Star Heritage :-)
>
> That pothole was deep enough to throw me out of the
> bike. No bus could have cut it

"To cut one" is slang for fart/pass gas/be flatulent. I thought you
might have meant that the bus made a rude sound from its exhaust.

> -- it had probably
> been created by prolonged wear and tear witout any
> repair.
>
> The bus, uhhhhm, straddled it.
>


--

John Varela

[Mike L]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:45:35 +0800, Robert Bannister

<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

>On 1/08/13 10:05 AM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:40:18 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In the city these days, you'd be daft to ride on the road if there's no
>>> cycle lane.
>>
>> Ob AUE: in the city, you have to ride in the street, not the road.
>
>That is a purely USA idea, and I wonder how strictly is adhered to even
>there. The most famous streets are the long highways the Romans built in
>Britain.
>

Well, yes and no, don't you think? The Roman roads are called "X
Street" because that was the word for a paved road. Otherwise, it's
generally a "road" if it leads from one town to another, and a
"street" if it's confined to a particular town. No?
[...]
--
Mike.

[Mac]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 12:20:58 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Friday, August 2, 2013 12:43:55 PM UTC-4, Mac wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 06:21:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>[potholes]
>
>> >Here, they're ragged holes in the road surface with fairly sharp edges --
>> >clearly not caused by gradual wear.
>>
>> That looks a bit like a straw man; where did anyone write of "gradual
>> wear?"
>
>He conjectured it was caused by the bus traffic.

And it well may have been, for certain values of "caused."

>
>> >There are also "sinkholes," which can be much larger -- last year in
>> >Florida one swallowed up an entire house -- but are also due to shifts
>> >in underground water but not relating to freezing.
>
>>
>> Umm, no. Changes in water level are only one of the ways that
>> sinkholes open, and freeze-thaw can cause a plugged sinkhole to open.
>
>Not in Florida.

....Ummmm, yeassss. Not so much in Florida. And? Perhaps we should
pass a Sinkhole Contanment Act, to keep them where they belong; in
Florida, apparently. I know large parts of Kentucky and Tennesee
would be grateful, to say nothing of the Lesser Tribes Without.

Anthony "karst at birth" McCafferty

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:35:43 -0700, Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu>

wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 12:20:58 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, August 2, 2013 12:43:55 PM UTC-4, Mac wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 06:21:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>[potholes]
>>
>>> >Here, they're ragged holes in the road surface with fairly sharp edges --
>>> >clearly not caused by gradual wear.
>>>
>>> That looks a bit like a straw man; where did anyone write of "gradual
>>> wear?"
>>
>>He conjectured it was caused by the bus traffic.
>
>And it well may have been, for certain values of "caused."
>>
>>> >There are also "sinkholes," which can be much larger -- last year in
>>> >Florida one swallowed up an entire house -- but are also due to shifts
>>> >in underground water but not relating to freezing.
>>
>>>
>>> Umm, no. Changes in water level are only one of the ways that
>>> sinkholes open, and freeze-thaw can cause a plugged sinkhole to open.
>>
>>Not in Florida.
>
>....Ummmm, yeassss. Not so much in Florida. And? Perhaps we should
>pass a Sinkhole Contanment Act, to keep them where they belong; in
>Florida, apparently. I know large parts of Kentucky and Tennesee
>would be grateful, to say nothing of the Lesser Tribes Without.

We'll keep all the sinkholes if Kentucky keeps Rand Paul locked up in
Mammouth Cave.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Robert Bannister]

That works fairly well here in Australia, but not in Britain, or at
least not regularly enough to call it a rule.

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter T. Daniels]

Why ruin a nice tourist attraction?

[Joy Beeson]

On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:16:19 +0400, Anton Shepelev
<anto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I take to the left side of the
> road in order to see all approaching vehicles be-
> forehand.

What do you do when you see one?


--
Joy Beeson

[Joy Beeson]

If he had been riding in the street, he would have had the right of
way, and I would have seen him.

Riding on sidewalks is the kind of stupid, impulsive thing kids do --
because they think it's SAFE. They don't realize that a sidewalk has
at least twice as many intersections where one has to look both ways
as the street does -- or that it's usually at an intersection that one
gets nailed.


--
Joy Beeson

[Anton Shepelev]

Joy Beeson:

> > I take to the left side of the road in order to

> > see all approaching vehicles beforehand.

>
> What do you do when you see one?

Nothing usually, but if it's a huge trailer truck
clattering threateningly and moving too close to the
curb, or a wide tracktor, or a bus turning into a
bus stop, I climb the curb.

Much worse it is to be startled by a sudden hooting
right behind my ear and a mad speeder swooshing past
in the very next moment almost scraping my right

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 12:50:50 AM UTC-4, Joy Beeson wrote:

> If he had been riding in the street, he would have had the right of
> way, and I would have seen him.

(Legally speaking, you would have seen him and yielded the right of way
to him.)

[Skitt]

Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Joy Beeson:

>> Anton Shepelev wrote:

>>> I take to the left side of the road in order to
>>> see all approaching vehicles beforehand.
>>
>> What do you do when you see one?
>
> Nothing usually, but if it's a huge trailer truck
> clattering threateningly and moving too close to the
> curb, or a wide tracktor, or a bus turning into a
> bus stop, I climb the curb.
>
> Much worse it is to be startled by a sudden hooting
> right behind my ear and a mad speeder swooshing past
> in the very next moment almost scraping my right
> handlebar.
>

Riding a bicycle on the wrong side of the road is illegal in most
jurisdictions in these parts, and there are good reasons for that.

For one, at intersections, you would be approaching cross-traffic from
an unexpected direction.

There was a time, when right at my own house, I was making a right turn
to a side street, keeping well to the right as I should, and I almost
wound up with a bicyclist on my hood. He was coming from my right on
the wrong side of the street, and there was no room for him to go
anywhere. We both stopped and stared at each other. Then he walked his
bike out of the way.

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/main.html

[Anton Shepelev]

John Varela:

> > That pothole was deep enough to throw me out of
> > the bike. No bus could have cut it
>

> "To cut one" is slang for fart/pass gas/be flatu-

> lent. I thought you might have meant that the bus
> made a rude sound from its exhaust.

Ah, that explains it. And you thought it scared me
:-)

This reminds of Fazil Iskander's story about a bull,
written from the bull's viewpoint. He regarded a
tractor as a living being, so when he saw it working
in the forest, he thought: "He was trying so hard
that smoke came out of his ass." The story is part
of his "Sandro of Chegem" publihsed in English by
Vintage Books in 1983.