cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on Jun 20, 2014 22:12:39 GMT -5
not sure, but if it was closer I would be trying to pick up the poly for my shop
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on Jun 20, 2014 21:41:15 GMT -5
That's a Covington, and at $400.00 the guy must think it's solid gold. Looks like its been rode hard and put up wet. Notice the cake pans for trays. check the other photos, its 400 for the covinton, the poly, a motor and some misc stuff
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on Jun 20, 2014 21:32:50 GMT -5
I'm looking for the hoods to a poly arbor D14. Can anyone help me? I really don't want to fabricate one. Thanks Connie, I've been looking for the same for months. Especially the wide hoods. I have three 8" and a 6" arbors. I have 3 narrow hoods, but only 1 wide hood for the 8" arbors, and no hoods for the 6" arbor. Someone had a pan on ebay the other day. I put a bid in, and the guy took the listing down. I didn't think ebay allowed them to do that after bidding started. Guess someone contacted the guy with an offer he couldn't refuse. one for sale with wide hoods in Oregon bend.craigslist.org/for/4530955010.html
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on Jun 18, 2014 13:31:33 GMT -5
interesting, but I would love to see the calculations (which would be easy to verify but aren't shown). It's healthy to be skeptical about everything, after all just because someone has a stage, doesn't make them right. Climate change aside, I really don't want high levels of co2 in the atmosphere. Everyone only needs to put their heads under the covers tonight to see why. That stuffy uncomfortable feeling is due to the excess co2. Sure, plants love it, but our bodies try to get rid of it as fast as possible. My first instinct after reading this was to go to the recent co2 measurements to see if the eruption was detected in global co2 concentrations. It wasn't, or at least I don't see a blip from the major eruption in 2010 (check for yourself) www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/. What this means to me: we have three statements that cannot be correct all together. In our case only 2 of the 3 can be correct. I am not sure who is right, but we can examine the possibilities. 1) Australian prof and CO2 measurements are right. In this case, the volcano is greater significance than human activity, but the volcano is insignificant in the overall rise of global CO2. This begs the question, where is the CO2 coming from? 2) Australian prof and Anthropogenic folks are right. In this case the measurements have to be wrong. This one is easy for for anyone to check. Co2 meters are ~400 bucks and can fit in your pocket. Anyone can can buy one and take our own measurements (I did this, but only have a year of data so far) 3) Co2 measurements and anthropogenic folks are right. In this case the Australian prof made an error in calculation. This would be easy to check if he shared his #'s, but he didn't. I guess we all better pull out the bulldozers and and eliminate the largest Co2 emitters. Global Green's City Carbon Index was created in 2011 to show a city's current status on greenhouse gas emissions and policies so residents can quickly become empowered to take action. Cities are responsible for 70% of global CO2 emissions, www.globalgreen.org/articles/global/67Taking this back on topic of the OP, let's do our own comparisons with some available #'s. If we take USGS #'s on the Mount Pinatubo eruption volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php, and the cities link above, then a single year of LA emissions=the Mount Pinatubo eruption (approximately) in terms of CO2 released. That is, if you believe these numbers.
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on Jun 18, 2014 12:47:28 GMT -5
Those are awesome!
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on Jun 18, 2014 12:29:46 GMT -5
interesting, but I would love to see the calculations (which would be easy to verify but aren't shown). It's healthy to be skeptical about everything, after all just because someone has a stage, doesn't make them right. Climate change aside, I really don't want high levels of co2 in the atmosphere. Everyone only needs to put their heads under the covers tonight to see why. That stuffy uncomfortable feeling is due to the excess co2. Sure, plants love it, but our bodies try to get rid of it as fast as possible. My first instinct after reading this was to go to the recent co2 measurements to see if the eruption was detected in global co2 concentrations. It wasn't, or at least I don't see a blip from the major eruption in 2010 (check for yourself) www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/. What this means to me: we have three statements that cannot be correct all together. In our case only 2 of the 3 can be correct. I am not sure who is right, but we can examine the possibilities. 1) Australian prof and CO2 measurements are right. In this case, the volcano is greater significance than human activity, but the volcano is insignificant in the overall rise of global CO2. This begs the question, where is the CO2 coming from? 2) Australian prof and Anthropogenic folks are right. In this case the measurements have to be wrong. This one is easy for for anyone to check. Co2 meters are ~400 bucks and can fit in your pocket. Anyone can can buy one and take our own measurements (I did this, but only have a year of data so far) 3) Co2 measurements and anthropogenic folks are right. In this case the Australian prof made an error in calculation. This would be easy to check if he shared his #'s, but he didn't.
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on Jun 3, 2014 13:18:47 GMT -5
So I was reading this post and then did my standard craigslist scan...low and behold there is a coring unit listed. Never seen one before, now seeing them everywhere. Is the universe trying to tell me to make spheres?
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on May 28, 2014 13:23:35 GMT -5
thanks Mark, maybe I should take a step back and try to get a positive ID on these.
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on May 28, 2014 11:58:06 GMT -5
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on May 28, 2014 9:52:17 GMT -5
Fantastic build! Can you give some details/link about the motor/drill? It looks promising for a project that has been kicking around the back of the skull.
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on May 28, 2014 9:39:02 GMT -5
Ok so I found a small stream next to my office that has a lot of tumbler sized pieces of zeolite. They are pretty cool, and almost look like coral/thomsonite, but are a translucent white color. I have been going there for a while now on my lunch break and my desk drawer is getting pretty full so its time I did something with them. Has anyone tried to tumble zeolite before? It is pretty soft, somewhere around 3 on the mohs.
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on May 14, 2014 10:38:50 GMT -5
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on Apr 18, 2014 9:31:50 GMT -5
"better to be pissed off than pissed on" -my mom. I'll let that one stand for itself.
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on Mar 26, 2014 10:29:33 GMT -5
Science is fun because you can put forth a hypothesis and see if it can hold up. Interestingly, a scientist can never be proven right, one can only demonstrate (through the scientific method) that a hypothesis is incorrect. Progress is made by disproving hypotheses, and replacing them with others. There is a ton of stuff that we, as human beings, don't know, like for example what is 95% of the universe made of? some fascinating stuff occurs with light: it's effects on a vacuum, it's behavior in a double slit experiment en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment, and the photoelectric effect en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect for starters. I would say that if light were actually a sucking force, the particles emitted from the photoelectric experiment would always travel toward the 'dark sucker' but they don't. Rather, they propagate randomly and follow billiard-ball style physics. The double slit experiment would show a diffraction pattern on the 'dark sucker' side of the slits if dark was being sucked, but it isn't there. This reminds me of an old engineering problem about a spinning lawn sprinkler. If you put it underwater and reverse the flow, does it spin in the opposite direction? At first glance the answer is yes, because all forces are reversed, but if you do the experiment, it doesn't move...curious.
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on Jan 31, 2014 11:36:45 GMT -5
those are absolutely stunning
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on Jan 31, 2014 11:34:01 GMT -5
now this has gotten me thinking about building my own arbor! One question on material selection for shafts: what about aluminum? I have a ton of solid round available, and it is a lot easier to turn on the lathe compared to stainless.
|
|