6 comments posted · 52 followers · following 0

11 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - Edward Snowden versus ... · 0 replies · +4 points

You made me double check my original thought on the fellow's name. Online dictionaries indicate that variations carney, carny, even carnie all possess the same definition. I had assumed that someone (with a sense of humor) hired him into that position on that basis.

11 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - A Computerized, Deskto... · 1 reply · +3 points

This is a MILL. It's the exact opposite of a PRINTER. It REMOVES material from a block. A printer ADDS material. (Caps just to emphasize the important words that most people who aren't machinists don't grasp). You can buy a decent used Bridgeport Mill for a bit more with the CNC stuff. But the quality is vastly improved over this plastic gizmo. Of course, it won't fit on your desk because it's a very bulky machine tool.

There will surely be a Metal Printer in the future, tho. All one needs is a CNC Mig welder that simply lays up layer upon layer of steel weld material. It's identical to the plastic 3D printer but it has $700 worth of a welding machine in place of the plastic melt and spray unit on the current plastic 3D printers.

I'd build one to sell, but it's so simple that there's nothing to patent. I figure China will be building them in just a couple years.

11 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - Incompetence in Action... · 0 replies · +1 points

Been doing the dollar store glasses for 7-8 years. As long as you can see distance but need a bit of help on the close in stuff the $1/pair is the only way to go. I too buy multiple pairs, leave them everywhere. A pair in every bathroom. A couple pair in the desk at work. Several more in the console of the truck. A pair in the top drawer of every tool box. Two pair right here by the computer.

They aren't perfect. I still squint a bit sometimes. but for the price, I'll squint a bit

14 years ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - WWII plane wreckage fo... · 1 reply · +1 points


I saw the fresh green boughs. Yes, the loggers rolled right through the site, stripping those off and harvesting the trunks. That's what they do - and they can't afford to stop for a wrecked plane in the way.

I was looking at stuff a tad older than the green boughs. Go back and look at the photos. For instance, look at the shot of the the panel with the words stenciled on it. To the right you'll see a partially buried 3-6" branch partially obscured by the panel laying on top of it. That rotten branch is not over 65 years old. It would have degraded into dirt in that time span.

In another photo you'll see a white (debarked) 2" stick underneath a what is a wing or elevator.

I'm an old hunter. I find stuff in the woods under a pine canopy from time to time. I've never found anything painted at 60 years of age that looked anywhere near as good as what was in those photos.

Just reporting my first hand experience. Trying to figure this out.

14 years ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - WWII plane wreckage fo... · 1 reply · +4 points

I know that the aluminum would hold up just fine. I was looking at the paint. The white stenciling on the one piece really surprised me. I have tools with stenciling that is only 25 years old, with maybe 10 years outdoors. It has faded way more than that! Was 1945 Mil-Spec paint that good?

I agree that there seems to have been a whole lot of disturbance by the loggers. Looks like they logged thru, with lots of fresh green pine boughs on the ground around it.

I'm in Michigan. Lots of pine here, too. After 65 years, I'm certain that the top of the wing or tail elevator in the one photo would have a thick layer of pine needles (many of which would have composed down to dirt) in that time. You should see what my boat deck looks like parked in the driveway after just a winter!

The whole scene just doesn't look like what I'd expect.

14 years ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - WWII plane wreckage fo... · 6 replies · +5 points

I'm not from your area, but this story seems to be the only one with good photos (Thanks KATU).

Anybody else confused by those photos? I see dried and partly rotted sticks and branches that disappear under the wreckage. A branch can't lay on the ground in the woods for 65 years. It'll vanish into compost, dirt. This looks like a rather recent crash site. Even the paint looks better than 65 years in the woods could leave it. Wouldn't a new (40-60 year old) tree or three have sprung up next to the wreckage?

The photos look like a 5-10 year old wreck, not 65. What am I missing?