MicroZED

Den fredag den 25. oktober 2013 15.30.16 UTC+2 skrev Phil Hobbs:
> On 10/24/2013 10:29 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> 
> > Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> 
> >> Den onsdag den 23. oktober 2013 18.35.11 UTC+2 skrev Phil Hobbs:
> 
> >>> On 10/23/2013 12:20 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>>> Strange with all the space Americans build where there is regular
> 
> >>>> earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding or a bit of everything
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>> Parsing error.  It's earthquakes they have a lot of in CA, not brick
> 
> >>> houses.  The prevalence of the one is one reason for the scarcity
> 
> >>> of the other.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> I know, it was a comment of how you build big cities where
> 
> >> the risk of earth quakes or hurricanes are high ;)
> 
> >
> 
> > We build them where the natural ports are.  There has to be a city where
> 
> > there is a port, and there has to be a port at the mouth of the Mississippi
> 
> > River.
> 
> >
> 
> > New York, LA and San Francisco are natural ports too.  But NY has never had
> 
> > a natural disaster like the hurricane of 2012.  Normally they blow out to
> 
> > sea.  It was a very unusual confluence of multiple fronts, low pressure
> 
> > areas, and high tide.
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> What I wonder is why the Dutch and Danes and so on build their houses so 
> 
> close to the Germans. ;)
> 

we sell a lot of our stuff to them  ;)

and then on weekend we can drive there to buy cheap wine, beer, candy and such 
because they have lower VAT, and while we are there we can get our cars serviced because they have lower salaries 

well I don't 300km is a bit long for a shopping trip

-Lasse

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 22:29:04 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
<td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

<...>

>New York, LA and San Francisco are natural ports too.  But NY has never had 
>a natural disaster like the hurricane of 2012.  Normally they blow out to 
>sea.  It was a very unusual confluence of multiple fronts, low pressure 
>areas, and high tide.

Not so much.  Hurricanes are a fairly normal event in NY.  They insist
on building closer and closer to the water, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:43:25 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:30:16 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
><l4drou$itf$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>>What I wonder is why the Dutch and Danes and so on build their houses so 
>>close to the Germans. ;)
>
>because it is further away from the americans.
>;-)

You just want to make it harder for us to come bail your ass out
again.

On 2013-10-23, krw@attt.bizz <krw@attt.bizz> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:56:31 -0700, John Larkin
><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


>>I can't imagine what would happen if an earthquake hit a big pile-o-rocks city
>>like Boston or London or Paris.
>
> Small buildings (and everything inside) would be gone.  The
> skyscrapers (over 20ish stories) would likely survive quite well. IOW,
> it wouldn't be pretty.

Nah, it's the big ones that will be busted up the most
small ones will survive id proplerly maintained.
expect some surprises.

-- 
&#9858;&#9859; 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

On 25 Oct 2013 20:40:11 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

>On 2013-10-23, krw@attt.bizz <krw@attt.bizz> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:56:31 -0700, John Larkin
>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>I can't imagine what would happen if an earthquake hit a big pile-o-rocks city
>>>like Boston or London or Paris.
>>
>> Small buildings (and everything inside) would be gone.  The
>> skyscrapers (over 20ish stories) would likely survive quite well. IOW,
>> it wouldn't be pretty.
>
>Nah, it's the big ones that will be busted up the most
>small ones will survive id proplerly maintained.
>expect some surprises.

Not so.  The resonant frequency of the large buildings is low enough
that they'll stay together.  At 10-20 stories, they're done.

On 2013-10-25, krw@attt.bizz <krw@attt.bizz> wrote:
>>Nah, it's the big ones that will be busted up the most
>>small ones will survive if proplerly maintained.
>>expect some surprises.
>
> Not so.  The resonant frequency of the large buildings is low enough
> that they'll stay together.  At 10-20 stories, they're done.

that helps with longitudinal waves, not so much with the vertical waves.

-- 
&#9858;&#9859; 100% natural

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 22:29:04 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > New York, LA and San Francisco are natural ports too.  But NY has
> > never had a natural disaster like the hurricane of 2012.  Normally
> > they blow out to sea.  It was a very unusual confluence of multiple
> > fronts, low pressure areas, and high tide.
>
> Not so much.  Hurricanes are a fairly normal event in NY.  They insist
> on building closer and closer to the water, though.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes


That list is for the State of New York.  Most of them didn't really hit the 
city.  A typical "hurricane" by New York standards, that did actually hit 
the city, was Irene 2 years ago, when I saw one fallen tree.  Before that it 
was a decade before a "hurricane" that was even that bad.  After Sandy there 
was a fallen tree or two on almost every block.  Just finding clear streets 
to drive around them was difficult.  In my lifetime before Sandy there were 
no hurricanes that seemed like more than a heavy rain.

A week after Sandy I heard a weird noise and went outside to see a scene 
from Hitchcock's "The Birds."  Every tree for at least a one-block radius 
was covered with crows.  The migration must have been disrupted.  After a 5 
minute rest they all took off.


-- 

Reply in group, but if emailing remove the last word. 

On 10/26/2013 12:16 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 22:29:04 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>> <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> New York, LA and San Francisco are natural ports too.  But NY has
>>> never had a natural disaster like the hurricane of 2012.  Normally
>>> they blow out to sea.  It was a very unusual confluence of multiple
>>> fronts, low pressure areas, and high tide.
>>
>> Not so much.  Hurricanes are a fairly normal event in NY.  They insist
>> on building closer and closer to the water, though.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes
>
>
> That list is for the State of New York.  Most of them didn't really hit the
> city.  A typical "hurricane" by New York standards, that did actually hit
> the city, was Irene 2 years ago, when I saw one fallen tree.  Before that it
> was a decade before a "hurricane" that was even that bad.  After Sandy there
> was a fallen tree or two on almost every block.  Just finding clear streets
> to drive around them was difficult.  In my lifetime before Sandy there were
> no hurricanes that seemed like more than a heavy rain.

Floyd in 1999 was a bit of an adventure where I am, because although it 
was well off its peak strength, it stalled just about right over me for 
almost a whole day, so we got over 24 inches of rain.  That was pretty 
exciting, because my back yard is a former pond bottom that drains via a 
10-inch storm drain.  We had about 8 feet of water in the bottom of the 
garden, and maybe 10 inches in the basement.  There were houses washed 
off their foundations nearby as well.  A friend of mine saved several 
people from being swept away by floodwaters at the Ossining train station.

Irene washed out the street between my house and my lab.  It was 6 
months before it was back to normal.

>
> A week after Sandy I heard a weird noise and went outside to see a scene
> from Hitchcock's "The Birds."  Every tree for at least a one-block radius
> was covered with crows.  The migration must have been disrupted.  After a 5
> minute rest they all took off.
>

Sandy was a bit of an adventure even here on the Hudson.  Boats wound up 
on the train tracks (my Hobie Cat floated about 100 feet uphill, trailer 
and all, and dragged a 100-foot section of fence along with it.  There's 
a 100-foot ridge just east of my house, so since Sandy's winds were from 
the east just here, it was a non-event.   A block away, where the ridge 
ends, 100-foot trees were uprooted or broken in half all over the place. 
  One guy had four of them snapped off or uprooted in his yard, but his 
house was untouched.

A 1200-mile wide hurricane is no joke.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs



-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 05:30:44 +1000, <krw@attt.bizz> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:43:25 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:30:16 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
>> <l4drou$itf$1@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> What I wonder is why the Dutch and Danes and so on build their houses  
>>> so
>>> close to the Germans. ;)
>>
>> because it is further away from the americans.
>> ;-)
>
> You just want to make it harder for us to come bail your ass out
> again.

You should spend more time look up the facts rather than the Hollywood (or  
even the Western) narcissistic view of World War 2. For every 1 American  
who died opposing the axis forces about 100 other people died doing the  
same thing, including approximately 60 Russians and 20 Chinese. In terms  
of percentages and in totals the major players, the US lost the fewest  
people, suffered the least damage and endured for the shortest time. In  
addition to that much of the war production help 'given' to the various  
allies was actually sold for hard currency and debt agreements. The Nazi's  
always saw the war as a strong emphasis on 'the eastern front' and the  
western front was defended at half the troop ratio (nazi to enemy) of the  
eastern front. These are all facts you can verify.

America's role in WW2 was not insignificant, but it was one of many and  
leader in very few aspects. America did not win the victory and certanily  
not by itself. IMO The worst part is that narcissistic view that exults  
the 1% and dismisses the 99% who in every way gave just as much and to we  
all in the free world owe just as much.

David Eather wrote:
>
> America's role in WW2 was not insignificant, but it was one of many
> and leader in very few aspects. America did not win the victory and
> certanily not by itself. IMO The worst part is that narcissistic view
> that exults the 1% and dismisses the 99% who in every way gave just
> as much and to we all in the free world owe just as much.

The main thing is that without us, the Soviet Union would have claimed all 
of Europe and got the bomb first.  So they wouldn't be speaking German as 
people sometimes say.


-- 

Reply in group, but if emailing remove the last word.