PDA

View Full Version : it seems some people don't get...



bhjones
07-08-2008, 06:27 PM
the whole concept of an open forum.

Yesterday I made a post asking about the calculation of divisions when creating a vernier scale.

http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showthread.php?t=29789

I made the post thinking I'd get a few ideas, pick up some theory and with any luck I'd learn something. A side benefit to these open discussions is that others can learn a little something while the thread is active or search through the archives later on. It's really a wonderful system.

While this thread was active I received a PM from member DJC informing me I was incorrect. Here is the PM:

####
> Let's say my cross feed dial has 100 divisions total. If I
> was to add a vernier to the system I'd space the divisions
> so that 10 marks on the vernier would fit within 9 marks on
> the dial. That would mean my if my dial has 100 divisions,
> my vernier would need to have it's circumference divided by
> 110 (only needing 10 marks).

I think you need to think again. If 10 marks on the vernier is 9 marks on the dial, 100 marks on the vernier is 90 marks on the dial and 110 marks on the vernier is 99 marks on the dial.

The spacing between each mark on the vernier is 90% of that between the spacing on the main dial. The spacing between the main dial marks is 1/100 of the circumference of the dial, so you need 90% of this i.e. 9/10 x 1/100 = 9/1000. Hence you have to divide your circumference by 1000 and mark every ninth division.
####

I responded back with this:

####
http://www.tpub.com/math1/7e.htm was the document that made it click for me. Perhaps I'm not reading it right.
####

Followed by this reply from DJC:

####
> Perhaps I'm not reading it right.

Well, you are correct in this assertion at least. There is nothing wrong in the link you posted.

It is your post that says dividing the circle into 110 parts will achieve a vernier scale that is incorrect.

Look at the link you posted. When the zero on the vernier scale lines up with the zero on the main scale, the one on the vernier scale is 9/10 of the way along the gap between zero and one on the main scale. If the gap on the main scale is 1/100 (of the circumference), the gap in the vernier scale is 9/10 of this, or 9/10 multiplied by 1/100 which equals 9/1000 as already posted.

If you don't believe me, go and buy George Thomas' "Model Engineer's Workshop Manual" ISBN 9781857610000 and read page 178. For your education, I have scanned the paragraph and it's at http://www.desolation-row.demon.co.uk/vernier.jpg

Now kindly post a correction to your erroneous post on the public forum, so nobody else reads it and makes the same mistake. If you don't correct your own work, I will.
####

Giving his point some thought I think he's right, and I'm glad he pointed it out to me.

I only wish he would have participated in the thread while it was active. I also would like to point out to DJC that my "Work" was not work at all, it was a question looking for an answer. I posted what I thought was a solution but was making a mistake in my thinking. Even then, I was questioning my solutions correctness.

Lastly I'd like to point out that threatening people as you did in your closing statement does no good. In fact it simply makes you look like an A55Hole.

Anyway, thanks for the correction DJC and I hope you take a more active part in the forum, it seems like you have something to offer.

rotate
07-08-2008, 07:17 PM
PM = private message.

You should have kept it that way. Revealing the content of the PM and the person's handle, however noble your intent may have been, is not kosher.

John Stevenson
07-08-2008, 07:24 PM
Brett,
Nothing suprises me, didn't follow the thread but did notice you had 10 replies and there was 21 replies on how to pronounce it :D

As if there is one correct pronunciation given different countries, accents and the way each of us dress.

Very easy mistake / misunderstanding to make when you transpose two numbers that are close to one another like 10/9 or 11/10 or 10/11 damn now I'm mixed up.

Anyone who hasn't done it will obviously have a scrap bin smaller than mine and that one only holds about 1 - 1/2 tonnes :D

.

aboard_epsilon
07-08-2008, 07:32 PM
Why go to all the trouble.

DRO's are the present technology

OR

Spend half your life re-inventing the wheel or falling out with people. ...or just go with the flow.

all the best..markj

tattoomike68
07-08-2008, 07:33 PM
vernier scales also are use in angular measurement like rotary tables, transits and bevel protractors.

In college I used a beautiful surveyors 1926 transit made in brass and cast iron that would read down to 1/2 a second.

My favorite calipers are vernier, my eyes dont see so well now days so I may gets some digitals.

As far a PM just ignore it, if they were so damn smart they would post thier opinion for all to see and be critiqued by the members. ;)

bhjones
07-08-2008, 07:34 PM
John, I just wanted to know how it was done for the sake of knowing. I may try making a vernier for my Craftsman crossfeed as a little mental exercise. I'll need to stock up on material first since I'm sure I'll have to make a few before I get it right.

As far as the "private" part of the PM. It seems if you threaten in a PM you loose all claims to privacy.

lazlo
07-08-2008, 07:35 PM
didn't follow the thread but did notice you had 10 replies and there was 21 replies on how to pronounce it :D

Not so fast John -- Bill Pace posted a separate OT thread about the pronunciation of vernier, and even then it was far more apropos than exploding CD's or universal spreadsheets :)

John Stevenson
07-08-2008, 07:51 PM
Yup I know it was seperate and Bill is a member I respect a lot but it did get 21 hits whilst the OP only got 10.
Don't know about the CD or spreadsheet, didn't read either.
I tend to skim a lot these days, the longer you stay on here the more things tend to get repeated.

.

lazlo
07-08-2008, 07:57 PM
I tend to skim a lot these days, the longer you stay on here the more things tend to get repeated.

True that.

Chipslinger
07-08-2008, 08:58 PM
I am with you on that one also John.

IOWOLF
07-08-2008, 09:00 PM
Same here, John.

torker
07-08-2008, 09:21 PM
Same here, John.
Couldn't stay away huh?

Chipslinger
07-08-2008, 09:22 PM
As long as he behaves himself isn't he still welcome here?

mochinist
07-08-2008, 09:44 PM
As long as he behaves himself isn't he still welcome here?I dont think he was ever not welcome, hes the one that left in a hissy fit cuz his thread got deleted or something.

mochinist
07-08-2008, 09:46 PM
Same here, John.http://i33.tinypic.com/2rdd8g4.jpg

Chipslinger
07-08-2008, 09:53 PM
I enjoyed most of what he had to offer, So maybe some of us should grow up?

I don't think he left in a " hissy fit" but I would be Pissed also if I felt Picked on. :)

mochinist
07-08-2008, 10:02 PM
I enjoyed most of what he had to offer, So maybe some of us should grow up?

I don't think he left in a " hissy fit" but I would be Pissed also if I felt Picked on. :)
Am I going to get an explanation as to why My mill thread got locked,George?

A PM would have been nice, but I guess that would have been too much trouble, Yes I am pissed.
Bottom of the 9th is right.

Do I strike out or walk?

I friggin walk, see ya, its been fun.

okay maybe not a hissy fit more of a temper tantrum

Chipslinger
07-08-2008, 10:07 PM
I think the bottom line is your Sig line, Mo.

torker
07-08-2008, 10:15 PM
Mo... LMAO...
Chipslinger... hey that's more like it... now I know where you're from :D.

bhjones
07-09-2008, 06:40 PM
More from that shinning star of helpfulness. Got this from DJC this afternoon.

####

Thanks for your interesting post. Consider very carefully the first reply to it. What you have done is totally unacceptable.

I don't post much as there are many more knowledgable than me and I can't be bothered to log in, but when I see a mistake that goes uncorrected, I have to say something.

Should I post in the original thread and ridicule your inadequate grasp of mathematics? Or should I drop you a PM asking you to reconsider? And for what? To receive a reply which indicates you still don't get it even though the source from which you claim to have learnt is correct.

You can see why my words were sharp. If you read the last line as a threat, then tear yourself from your mother's bosom, wrap up warm and try to get out more my dear.

And what of the thread that sits (and is still sitting) there for posterity? It is far better that you edit your post so the error is never seen than I post a correction that is lost in the rest of the crap that other people are spouting there.

As part of the package, I spent time scanning copyrighted material and posted it such that you had easy access to it. In this case, I thought the educational value was more important than the copyright.

And then you go and post a private link from a private message. The information has now been removed. I did consider replacing it with an image that called your parentage into question or suggested you had intimate relations with animals, which, while quite amusing, might seem vindictive.

You say you want to know how it should be done for the sake of knowing. This is highly commendable, but if you start off (unwittingly) from the wrong premises, you will end up frustrated. If we even start to contemplate that 9/10 x 1/100 ends up with a denominator that is 110, then the fellow with 118 divisions on his wheel doesn't seem so ridiculous after all.

[Your next homework assignment is to work out how close 110 divisions would be]

####

I beg him to take part in the forum and to correct my errors in the vernier post, but it seems he'd rather belittle me in a private message.

I'll try again. DJC, please participate, add your knowledge to this forum. Please correct my mistake and show me the correct way to calculate the vernier. It is after all, what I was asking for to begin with.

Hopefully you'll also notice that whatever crap you PM me is simply going to be posted to the public for all to marvel at. You're doing a fine job of presenting yourself as some kind of control freak and again like and a55hole. You're demands that I post some kind of formal retraction lest I poison the minds of future HSM forum readers is very bizarre since you can point out the mistake yourself in the offending thread, this is a public forum and as I just stated it was what I wanted.

Your Old Dog
07-09-2008, 07:10 PM
Just for the record:

If I send someone a Private Message I would appreciate it if you kept it that way as I'm likely doing you a favor by sending it private.

If I make a post public then I consider it for all to see.

If I am in error on a post and someone is kind enough to correct me with a private message instead of digging out the flame thrower then you can bet I will correct the mistake and thank them for their time.

Chipslinger
07-09-2008, 07:11 PM
And all this is for a Post about a almost antique measureing device?


I don't Get it. :) :) :)

rantbot
07-09-2008, 08:13 PM
If I send someone a Private Message I would appreciate it if you kept it that way as I'm likely doing you a favor by sending it private.

If I make a post public then I consider it for all to see.

The obvious problem with this arrangement is that the sender is putting a burden on the recipient, a burden he never adopted. I mean burden in the sense of an obligation or agreement, not a heavy load.

An agreement based on the acquiescence of only one of the involved parties is not much of an agreement. That's the theoretical difficulty.

The practical difficulty is that the PM system is not meant to give license to people who want to act like dicks.

The way to prevent them from thinking that they're free to act like dicks is to leave open the possibility that their puerilities will be publicized.

A.K. Boomer
07-09-2008, 08:53 PM
I enjoyed most of what he had to offer, So maybe some of us should grow up?

I don't think he left in a " hissy fit" but I would be Pissed also if I felt Picked on. :)



Gawd, Chipper, sometimes I feel like I dont even know u:p

Enjoyed most of what he had to offer? WHAT? was it the copious pearls of everyday wisdom or the wonderful demeanor that which it was regurgitated with,

I really like the new atmosphere around here, And I have not seen one newbie get nothing but help ---- instead of abuse...

Biggest thing I think iv seen in months is Tiffer and JT throwing a few good punches, big difference is there well placed intelligent punches. not some hillbilly whos just pissed off cuz he's got no more front teeth to be knocked out --------------- Ok -------- come on AK --- tell us how you really feel:D

Chipslinger
07-09-2008, 09:07 PM
You don't know me Do you? Perhaps someday we will meet. If so I will buy you a tall glass of silver stuff or whatever you are drinking then.

A.K. Boomer
07-09-2008, 10:10 PM
Gawd, --- a guy sweels down a couple gallons of colloidal silver and nobody will ever let him forget it, I'll take you up on a tall glass of ale (in summer) or red wine (in winter) and raise you a couple of whatever your choice,
Been "blue" many a time, but not the color:)

bhjones
07-10-2008, 12:09 AM
I agree that the polite thing to do would be to keep a PM private and 99.99999% of the time I wouldn't even consider publishing them. What prompted me to post these was the demanding, threatening nature of the original messages and then today he sends me another one message calling me stupid and claiming I bugger animals.

All this drama when he simply should have corrected me in the original post. If he had, I would have seen the errors of my ways and thanked him for it. Instead he was a prick, so I decided to show the world how big of a prick he is.


Just for the record:

If I send someone a Private Message I would appreciate it if you kept it that way as I'm likely doing you a favor by sending it private.

If I make a post public then I consider it for all to see.

If I am in error on a post and someone is kind enough to correct me with a private message instead of digging out the flame thrower then you can bet I will correct the mistake and thank them for their time.

Timewarp
07-10-2008, 01:05 AM
Posted a question regarding threading on my Hercus lathe. DJC responded in a PM and offered extensive help. I think you are overlooking the fact that he also is offering to help and teach you something.
Paul L

Timo
07-10-2008, 07:27 AM
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f210/piperj4/Dial002.jpg

Evan
07-10-2008, 08:21 AM
Understanding the Vernier principle has a lot more applications than just using a reliable set of calipers. I once built a couple of jack stands for the back of my trailer. I wanted to be able to adjust them to within 1/2" using 1/2" pins in 1/2" holes. Obviously I couldn't drill a 1/2" hole every 1/2" in the square tubing.

The solution is to drill three holes in the square tube jack stand housing that the jacks slide in on the bumper with a spacing of 1" center to center. The square tube stands are drilled every 1 1/2 inch. That way no matter how it is adjusted you are never more than 1/2" from the next hole alignment with one of the three holes in the housing.

That is the Vernier principle.

NickH
07-10-2008, 09:06 AM
Anyone offering abuse in a PM should be outed, the system is not there to allow spineless private abuse of others.
This may consitute painting a target on my back :D
Nick

A.K. Boomer
07-10-2008, 09:40 AM
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f210/piperj4/Dial002.jpg



Its a perfect example Timo of just how accurate things can get, you have an obvious mark that is slightly off in one direction and one thats slightly off in the other whilst the middle is right on the money,
As a mechanic the porsche 911 comes to mind, it utilizes the vernier system to adjust camshaft timing, with a cam sprocket that has 17 alignment holes in it for one alignment pin yet the backing hub has 18 holes at the identical radius,(although I believe there half moon holes as full holes interupt each other) also I believe the cams sprocket teeth may be offset in their relationship with its sprocket holes, Its been a long time but I figured out increments and it was amazing how close you could dial in these cams, I remember some Italian exotics that did it up better than the 911, While you could dial in the porsche very closely it did not allow you to take advantage of the engines performance -- anotherwords all you could really do was set it up to factory specs, it was great for compensating for timing chain wear ect. -- The reason it was limited was due to the fact that both intake and exhaust lobes were on the same shaft - it was a SOHC engine, You could cheat a little and retard the cam for higher RPM as the intake is the dominant valve, but you actually hurt the exhaust side perf., the ticket is to have this system on a DOHC, now you can advance the exhaust valve and retard the intake and dial in your own high RPM perf. pref.:cool: OR visa versa if you want to pull stumps out of the ground:D For back in the day it was the best thing going, now we have engines that will both pull the stump and then adjust as RPM's increase, Now your cooking with Gasz.

John Stevenson
07-10-2008, 09:56 AM
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f210/piperj4/Dial002.jpg

81.6...................................

.

A.K. Boomer
07-10-2008, 10:03 AM
Eyes going bad SJ? 81.61...............:D

John Stevenson
07-10-2008, 10:14 AM
Well if we are splitting hairs I reckon 81.608

http://www.stevenson-engineers.co.uk/files/Dial002.jpg

:D

.

A.K. Boomer
07-10-2008, 11:00 AM
Nice!

And I would agree you are closer, but were actually both being fooled a little,

One of the big advantages of the vernier system is that its "self aligning"
Be it on a straight linear scale or a cylindrical scale one should always take all three critical marks into consideration, Just like it takes two eyes in our head to judge distance appropriately the vernier system has a built in failsafe -- The reason I brought it up to Timo that; "you have an obvious mark that is slightly off in one direction and one thats slightly off in the other whilst the middle is right on the money"
was because I wanted to point out the importance of all three marks being taken into consideration, Now that we are splitting hairs lets dissect the dial to come up with an approximation of what we might consider ballpark by using all three increments, first off the middle mark is right on the money, in fact - its about as perfect as we can get, BUT the other two marks actually are telling us this is not true as one is more advanced than the other, so what does this mean?
It means we need to adjust our View, If utilized correctly the vernier system is "self aligning" with the way we go to view the scale, I can tell you that the picture is off for proper reading of the scale, since we cant just move our head over the scale for a proper reading we will have to take a stab at it from this angle, Just like the linear vernier scale has to gauge ones final "assumption" on the mark that is the closest to alignment so thats where your center of view needs to be indicated from, with a cylindrical view one needs to adopt the same technique, since the pic is off aprox. one full increment one would need to not only move there head over to the right but also tilt it slightly to maintain direct view of said line in relation to cylinder parameters --- what this in effect does is have a drastic change on both outer marks and a miniscule change on the middle as the closer you get to center the lesser the angle change will effect the relationship of the two center marks (think sun shadows almost directly above you as compared to late in the day when a small child can be 30 ft long.)

In summary, If used correctly The vernier system puts into effect a set of checks and balances that removes operator error --- if all three marks stack up to what they should. This picture is a stellar example that the gauge is being viewed wrong as all marks do not add up to what they should be showing...
Anyways, after all that BS being said:p I will take a new stab at the dial and estimate is to be much more closer to the original est. and call it 81.602

oldtiffie
07-10-2008, 11:13 AM
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f210/piperj4/Dial002.jpg

Sorry to get this pic up again as I'm as sick of it as any - but I need it this time.

First of all it does demonstrate the vernier principle as the ten divisions on the top or "fixed"/reference cover eleven divisions on the "moving"/dial part ("0" is opposite 81.6 and "10" is opposite 70.6 = a difference of 11).

That vernier is a real PITA to me as the zero is off-set to the left and introduces parallax error as the machinist is generally looking straight down on mid-scale (ie the "5") on the fixed scale whereas to look "straight down" onto the "zero" (ie "0") on the fixed scale he would have to move his head to the left. I do like the "fine feed" wheel though (the small knurled knob on the bottom right) as that is real "Tool-Room stuff".

I much prefer the "zero" at centre scale with the graduations left and right as on a vernier scale on a vernier protractor or on my "Vertex" rotary tables. That way there is no parallax error and I can use it "left and right" so that it works for boring (internally) where "out" movement of the cross-slide is required as well as "normally" where "in" is required.

If I were working to "tenths" I'd be using a DRO on the cross-slide or a good dial indicator on the tool-post. Further, I would not just try to "creep up" to the mark, as I'd "swing back" at least half a turn of the lead-screw and re-set it as required as I would have minimised the effects of "stiction" which is the "get it going from stopped" friction as opposed to friction which is dynamic and is the friction required to "keep it moving/going".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction

Stiction can be reduced by a "dither" such as caused by the lathe/mill/machine motor and/or spindle revolving when setting the machine dial or lead-screw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither

I found this out on very highly sensitive and accurate (pre-digital) analogue computers and machines in the Navy. Too little "dither" (amplitude) and the machine lacked accuracy and sensitivity, too much and the machine became unstable or would vibrate itself to pieces. The dither was a low frequency AC current super-imposed on a DC circuit which controlled hydraulic circuits.

I'd agree that vernier or digital calipers were a bit suspect if anything better than +/- 0.002" was required of the inside and outside jaws, but they can make an excellent depth guage that will rival a good depth micrometer. I do very well with a digital caliper in conjunction with the traditional spring calipers. I can "hold" spring calipers to +/- 0.0005" (half a thou) quite easily and to about 0.0003" or better with some additional effort.

Use the calipers with either of these clamps/devices and the accuracy is quite amazing - the digital caliper with its "zero/re-set functions becomes a very serviceable "depth micrometer":
http://littlemachineshop.com/products/product_view.php?ProductID=2433&category=1310310429

http://www.cdcotools.com/item.php?itemid=282

lazlo
07-10-2008, 11:17 AM
Well if we are splitting hairs I reckon 81.608 :D

Even under magnification it looks balls-on 81.6 ;)

Hey, I know -- mount a web cam above your vurnear (http://content.answers.com/main/content/ahd4/pron/V0067300.wav), and use the picture measuring software to interpolate the exact reading. :rolleyes:

lazlo
07-10-2008, 11:22 AM
If I were working to "tenths" I'd be using a DRO on the cross-slide or a good dial indicator on the tool-post.

LOL! The lines one the vernier are scribed +/- a thou, they're a couple of thou thick, and the vernier plate is riveted or glued on. You can read tenths off a leadscrew dial if you're really anal, but you're not getting anywhere near that accuracy...


I do like the "fine feed" wheel though (the small knurled knob on the bottom right) as that is real "Tool-Room stuff".

That's a dial lock Tiff, not a fine-feed.

oldtiffie
07-10-2008, 12:04 PM
Exactly.

Leaving everything "as is" and re-running the tool over the same path again can often get a couple of tenths or more off.

I developed the habit a long time ago - on Senior machinist instructions - to keep the spindle spinning and move the tool toward the "start"/tail-stock and see what kind or depth the tool left. If deep/wide/big enough, re-do it and than see what the result is. I was taught to use the side/end of the tolerance range that would allow more metal to be removed if necessary and to use all the tolerance range if needs be as that is what it is there for - to be used.

Usually at that level of accuracy, surface finish is as important as dimensional accuracy.

There is nothing wrong with using a file or emery or "wet and dry" paper on a machine either if used judiciously and correctly.

Those practices have stood me in good stead over many years.


That's a dial lock Tiff, not a fine-feed.

So it is indeed - so it is.

I have used machines with those fine/micro feeds - cylindrical grinders usually but some Tool-Room" lathes and they worked pretty well although I admit that I prefer to "eye" the "tenths" in as I do pretty well - no "stiction".

That is the advantage of a DRO or dial indicator as it is more "dynamic" and easier to "creep up" to reasonably smoothly without that painfully slow creeping up to a vernier scale.

The only verniers - and to some extent most dials - that I trust are the vernier calipers and protractors as the part moved drives the vernier scale and is locked/fixed to it.

Chipslinger
07-10-2008, 02:50 PM
Show me a Vernier that reads Tenths. I know of none, nor do I want to use it.

moldmonkey
07-10-2008, 05:06 PM
Show me a Vernier that reads Tenths. I know of none, nor do I want to use it

How about .0001 mikes?

Chipslinger
07-10-2008, 05:18 PM
Amateur.
That is a Micrometer Based on the Vernier scale. Not the same.

bhjones
07-10-2008, 05:24 PM
For todays episode in "I just can't let it go", DJC calls me a woman and stupid.

####
Dear Miss Jones,

Thankyou for your kind offer of secretarial services and for your efforts so far.

If I send my next private mail in shorthand, perhaps you would be kind enough to transcribe it before you post it before the community at large. It will save me so much time.

If you can do simultaneous translation into Swahili for those who do not speak English, and also perhaps signing for the deaf, that would be a great advantage.

Please would you clarify one small issue? Do I have exclusive call on your time, or do you offer this invaluable service to other members of the forum? I would hate to think that others are missing out on your considerable talent, but perhaps you should not broadcast our relationship too widely as they may become jealous.

In any case, I am afraid we will have to discontinue the current
discussion. I am off on holiday for a while. Gone fishing, actually. Have you ever tried it? Strangely addictive, you know. Tie the correct worm onto the end of the line and they bite every time without fail. This year I may also try bear-baiting. I am not too experienced in this but have been practising hard over the last couple of days.

Before I go, I must say that I am disappointed that you did not return your homework assignment, set yesterday.

How close would a faux-vernier based on 1/110 parts be to the correct value of 9/1000 parts? Having seen your struggle with multiplication the other day, which we overcame via our previous dialogue, I'm guessing we may need a couple of sessions on long division too.

Anyhow, in the faux-vernier, the eleven marks (0-10) span ten spaces, each 1/110 of the circumference. Hence the total span is 10 x 1/110 = 10/110 = 1/11 i.e. 9.09% of the total.

In the real vernier, total span is 10 x 9/1000 = 90/1000 = 9/100 i.e. 9.00% of the total.

So 1/110, although not mathematically correct, is surprisingly close - a smidge less than a tenth of a percent out.

TTFN
####

Baring threats on my life or DJC breaking into "Yo Mama's so fat" insults, I'm done with this knuckle head. It's played out, I've made my point and any more beating will just pulp the horse.

Patch
07-10-2008, 05:40 PM
Site: http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php

Find "Vernier Caliper"

Chipslinger
07-10-2008, 05:48 PM
Cool :rolleyes:

moldmonkey
07-10-2008, 05:50 PM
I don't think anyone who lists there profession as an operator should be calling anyone an amateur. The discussion is on vernier scales not just vernier calipers.

George Bulliss
07-10-2008, 05:51 PM
For future reference:

If anyone is having troubles with PMs they should first PM me (or email gbulliss@villagepress.com) and I will take care of things. The wrong way to go about it is to slam the guy in public. While it might feel good to do it, there is no room for that in this forum. I have not locked this thread because it has some good info in it, but Iíve had enough of this. Move on.

George Bulliss

bhjones
07-10-2008, 06:01 PM
Happy to George.

Anything else that comes my way will be forwarded to you. Sorry to cause you any headaches.


For future reference:

If anyone is having troubles with PMs they should first PM me (or email gbulliss@villagepress.com) and I will take care of things. The wrong way to go about it is to slam the guy in public. While it might feel good to do it, there is no room for that in this forum. I have not locked this thread because it has some good info in it, but Iíve had enough of this. Move on.

George Bulliss

IOWOLF
07-10-2008, 06:04 PM
Someone else is in the Hot seat now, Nuck, Nuck, nuck. :)

bhjones
07-10-2008, 06:13 PM
Great link.


Site: http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php

Find "Vernier Caliper"

John Stevenson
07-10-2008, 06:15 PM
Someone else is in the Hot seat now, Nuck, Nuck, nuck. :)

Wrong key,
one row up and three to the left.

.

S_J_H
07-10-2008, 06:28 PM
Who is DJC ? Has this member ever posted publicly on the forum?

I personally don't see the point in anybody reading the forum but only communicating to others through PM's.
Steve