Apollo: One gas environment?

Peter Stickney wrote:

Slightly veering off, here - but my Paternal Grandmother was an
excellent Baker - with the proviso that she only could use a
Wood-burning Range and Oven. I can't for the life of me describe how
she did it, but she was able to manipulate wood types, fuel stack
configuration (A lot of subtle Aerodynamics in a Wood Stove, that's
for sure) and damper/flue settings like a Culinary Casey Jones, and
the results were always fantastic.


That must have taken a _long_ time to learn how to do well.

Pat

Dale wrote:

Turning him into some kind of Space Hitler?

Dale

Trying my damndest to end this thread

Did he ever dress up as a cat?

Pat

On Fri, 7 May 2004 23:17:02 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:

In article ,
Mary Shafer writes:
On Wed, 05 May 2004 19:05:13 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

Personally, I wonder if she special-ordered a convection oven with a set
of pitot tubes and a digital telemetry recorder . . . ;-)

All the appliances but the wet bar refrigerator were special-order
(one of the few real options in the house). The convection oven is
digital and has a temperature probe, but no pitot tubes. Good enough?

I'm going to have to get the thermostats in both ovens calibrated, I
think. Maybe I'll get a good oven thermometer and save the service
call, instead.

Slightly veering off, here - but my Paternal Grandmother was an
excellent Baker - with the proviso that she only could use a
Wood-burning Range and Oven. I can't for the life of me describe how
she did it, but she was able to manipulate wood types, fuel stack
configuration (A lot of subtle Aerodynamics in a Wood Stove, that's
for sure) and damper/flue settings like a Culinary Casey Jones, and
the results were always fantastic.

My maternal grandmother, my mother, and my aunt could do that, too.
Impressive, isn't it?

Even with a modern oven, there's still some variation in temperature
throughout. The convection fan isn't enough to make the temperature
uniform, either.

For that matter, jet engine combustion chambers have temperature
gradients, too. Good thing, or there'd be nowhere to put the
instrumentation.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

In article ,
Scott Hedrick wrote:

Well, it sure turned out that the French were doing business there
illegally, along with the Germans and the Russians. No wonder they fought
against enforcing UN sanctions- they had been violating them the whole time.

I haven't seen much discussion of this in the media ... (well, I think
I saw some stuff on Russia). I am aware that there were some deals
set up in advance, that couldn't be consumated until sanctions were
lifted. But I haven't seen any reports of France or Germany directly
violating the old sanctions, or even fighting enforcing the
existing (trade) sanctions. Can you refer me to something I could
read?

(though, if they were ... perhaps that is why they were so sure that
there were no WMD! :-)

Though sadly, I'm starting to wonder if the whole WMD thing was
simply a consipracy of some kind within the intelligence services
and the Defense Department, to justify the war that they had been
pushing for.

Nick

On Sun, 2 May 2004, Herb Schaltegger wrote:
"Normal person", huh? You mean, some sort of "units snob?"

Some of us we born in countries that had already converted.


===
= DUG.
===

"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Scott Hedrick wrote:

Well, it sure turned out that the French were doing business there
illegally, along with the Germans and the Russians. No wonder they fought
against enforcing UN sanctions- they had been violating them the whole
time.

I haven't seen much discussion of this in the media

Of course not- it supports Bush.

But I haven't seen any reports of France or Germany directly
violating the old sanctions, or even fighting enforcing the
existing (trade) sanctions. Can you refer me to something I could
read?

The documents were found in the hands of a looter, as briefly reported in
ABC News, and no doubt are buried in a file somewhere now.

Though sadly, I'm starting to wonder if the whole WMD thing was
simply a consipracy of some kind within the intelligence services
and the Defense Department, to justify the war that they had been
pushing for.

Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by bureaucratic
stupidity.

In article , says...

snip

Though sadly, I'm starting to wonder if the whole WMD thing was
simply a consipracy of some kind within the intelligence services
and the Defense Department, to justify the war that they had been
pushing for.

I dunno - I think there might have been some of that. But I also think
that Saddam was basically trying to **** with the American and other
Western intelligence services, to keep us *unsure* of the status of
possible WMDs in his possession.

Basically, I think Saddam figured that if he kept us wondering about
WMDs, we would respect him more and give him more wiggle room. He had a
massive lack of understanding of how our intelligence services and
military would lock on to the false signals he was giving out and use
them to justify a full-scale invasion.

Doug

On or about Sun, 09 May 2004 05:29:45 GMT, Doug . .
made the sensational claim that:
Basically, I think Saddam figured that if he kept us wondering about
WMDs, we would respect him more and give him more wiggle room. He had a
massive lack of understanding of how our intelligence services and
military would lock on to the false signals he was giving out and use
them to justify a full-scale invasion.

That's really not so different from why *any* country tries to keep military
secrets. Even the U.S. The main difference there is our status as a "super
power".
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

In article ,
says...
On or about Sun, 09 May 2004 05:29:45 GMT, Doug . .
made the sensational claim that:
Basically, I think Saddam figured that if he kept us wondering about
WMDs, we would respect him more and give him more wiggle room. He had a
massive lack of understanding of how our intelligence services and
military would lock on to the false signals he was giving out and use
them to justify a full-scale invasion.

That's really not so different from why *any* country tries to keep military
secrets. Even the U.S. The main difference there is our status as a "super
power".

Another difference is that we aren't a defeated country that's
supposedly bound to respect cease-fire agreements which prohibit our
owning WMDs of any kind. That's where Saddam was just plain stupid. He
was thinking in terms of trying to force respect through strength -- he
simply had no clue whatsoever how this new American regime was going to
respond to his "pretending" that his WMD programs might, indeed, be
alive and well. He just couldn't imagine that anyone would get THAT
upset about that kind of posturing, even though he KNEW that he was
treading close to the line of violating agreements he had signed.

Doug

In article ,
Doug... wrote:

I dunno - I think there might have been some of that. But I also think
that Saddam was basically trying to **** with the American and other
Western intelligence services, to keep us *unsure* of the status of
possible WMDs in his possession.

I've wondered if may have been more Saddam's people ****ing with
him! They would have been a lot better off to have "succeeded" and
report they did have WMD, when they actually had little to show
for it ...

Kind of ironic if that was what had happened ...

Nick