Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Tha Ghee
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

"Captain Howdy" wrote in message
...

Okay then, So,,,,,,,,,subs sound louder in the winter (in cold weather)
because the air is less dense due to a lack of water in the air and there

for
moves with less effort ?

no, in the winter the air is DENSER, less energy, and less water vapor. the
more dense the less energy you need to keep the molecules moving.


  #42   Report Post  
Tha Ghee
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

"Captain Howdy" wrote in message
...
Okay fine, but wouldnt the water itself make the air denser?


nope less dense, the H2O is bigger so it takes up space and energy.


  #43   Report Post  
Mark Zarella
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

no, in the winter the air is DENSER,

Pressure is proportional to temperature.

less energy, and less water vapor.


Less water vapor would result in less density, not more. This is because
vapor displaces air.

the
more dense the less energy you need to keep the molecules moving.



  #44   Report Post  
Mark Zarella
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

Okay fine, but wouldnt the water itself make the air denser?


nope less dense, the H2O is bigger so it takes up space and energy.


But the mere presence of the water is increasing density, when compared with
the case where the water isn't there. You're not losing air molecules.
You're just adding water.


  #45   Report Post  
Captain Howdy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

Sounds like you have this ass backwards. Anything water logged would be
denser/heavier and harder to move vs the samething that is dry

In article , "Tha Ghee"
wrote:
"Captain Howdy" wrote in message
...

Okay then, So,,,,,,,,,subs sound louder in the winter (in cold weather)
because the air is less dense due to a lack of water in the air and there

for
moves with less effort ?

no, in the winter the air is DENSER, less energy, and less water vapor. the
more dense the less energy you need to keep the molecules moving.




  #46   Report Post  
Stephen Shoihet
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

Do a search for Psychrometrics. Look at a psych chart or try the psych
calc at http://www.linric.com/webpsysi.htm

There are two measures of temperature, wet bulb and dry bulb. Dry bulb
is what a conventional thermometer measures (sensible heat). Wet bulb
temp is caused by evaporating water. The humidity that is given on the
weather is Relative humidity (as opposed to absolute humidity) and is
dependent on temperature. It all relates the amount of energy
(enthalpy) in the air.

An example: at sea level, 101.325 kPa (will change with altitude and
pressure)
Starting with moist air, @ Dry bulb temp(Tdb) = 20deg C(68deg F), 60%
RH

Wet bulb temp (Twb) is 15.1deg C (59.2F) this is the temp that you
would feel if you were wet in some way eg. perspiration. This is also
how swamp coolers work.

specific volume of this air is 0.84 m^3/kg

the dewpoint (Tdp/100% RH) is 12.1 deg C

If you were to drop the temp of the air mixture to 12.1C the RH would
increase to 100% and you would start to get condensation. Decreasing
the air temp to 12.1 decreases the specific volume to 0.82 m^3/kg. At
100% RH the Twb and Tdb are the same, 12.1 deg C and the reason
perspiration doesn't cool you at high humidity rates.

increasing the temp to Tdb = 39C (102.2F):
RH ~ 20%
Twb ~ 21.4C (70.5F)
v ~ 0.9 m^3/kg

The humidity ratio is ~ 8.8 g moisture/kg dry air.


If anyone really wants (though I don't know why) I can send them a
psych chart for various altitudes and the formulas to work it all out.
Hope that helps a bit

-Steve (who thought he'd never use this when he took it in school :-)


(Captain Howdy) wrote in message ...
Where is Lester, he's a scientific type of a noob, maybe he can draw us a
chart or a graph on this issue.


In article , "Peter"
wrote:
The temperature has nothing to do with the humidity level. Humidity
is a measure of the moisture content of the air. Hell, it's been
100% humidity here for a couple of days now an it hasn't gotten over
43 degrees.


Temperature has everything to do with humidity level. The warmer it is the
more water vapor can air sustain without condensing. 100% humidity at 32F
means there's lot less water vapor in air than 100% at 100F. Basic physics.

Peter


  #47   Report Post  
Captain Howdy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround


Thanks Steve, That was a most interesting post. Its rare to learn anything new
in here.


In article ,
(Stephen Shoihet) wrote:
Do a search for Psychrometrics. Look at a psych chart or try the psych
calc at
http://www.linric.com/webpsysi.htm

There are two measures of temperature, wet bulb and dry bulb. Dry bulb
is what a conventional thermometer measures (sensible heat). Wet bulb
temp is caused by evaporating water. The humidity that is given on the
weather is Relative humidity (as opposed to absolute humidity) and is
dependent on temperature. It all relates the amount of energy
(enthalpy) in the air.

An example: at sea level, 101.325 kPa (will change with altitude and
pressure)
Starting with moist air, @ Dry bulb temp(Tdb) = 20deg C(68deg F), 60%
RH

Wet bulb temp (Twb) is 15.1deg C (59.2F) this is the temp that you
would feel if you were wet in some way eg. perspiration. This is also
how swamp coolers work.

specific volume of this air is 0.84 m^3/kg

the dewpoint (Tdp/100% RH) is 12.1 deg C

If you were to drop the temp of the air mixture to 12.1C the RH would
increase to 100% and you would start to get condensation. Decreasing
the air temp to 12.1 decreases the specific volume to 0.82 m^3/kg. At
100% RH the Twb and Tdb are the same, 12.1 deg C and the reason
perspiration doesn't cool you at high humidity rates.

increasing the temp to Tdb = 39C (102.2F):
RH ~ 20%
Twb ~ 21.4C (70.5F)
v ~ 0.9 m^3/kg

The humidity ratio is ~ 8.8 g moisture/kg dry air.


If anyone really wants (though I don't know why) I can send them a
psych chart for various altitudes and the formulas to work it all out.
Hope that helps a bit

-Steve (who thought he'd never use this when he took it in school :-)


(Captain Howdy) wrote in message
...
Where is Lester, he's a scientific type of a noob, maybe he can draw us a
chart or a graph on this issue.


In article , "Peter"
wrote:
The temperature has nothing to do with the humidity level. Humidity
is a measure of the moisture content of the air. Hell, it's been
100% humidity here for a couple of days now an it hasn't gotten over
43 degrees.

Temperature has everything to do with humidity level. The warmer it is the
more water vapor can air sustain without condensing. 100% humidity at 32F
means there's lot less water vapor in air than 100% at 100F. Basic physics.

Peter


  #48   Report Post  
Mark Zarella
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

Thanks Steve, That was a most interesting post. Its rare to learn anything
new
in here.


Especially since you always insist on clinging on to old ideas.


  #49   Report Post  
Paul Vina
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

And yet he keeps coming back.........



Paul Vina



"Captain Howdy" wrote in message
news

Thanks Steve, That was a most interesting post. Its rare to learn anything

new
in here.


In article ,
(Stephen Shoihet) wrote:
Do a search for Psychrometrics. Look at a psych chart or try the psych
calc at
http://www.linric.com/webpsysi.htm

There are two measures of temperature, wet bulb and dry bulb. Dry bulb
is what a conventional thermometer measures (sensible heat). Wet bulb
temp is caused by evaporating water. The humidity that is given on the
weather is Relative humidity (as opposed to absolute humidity) and is
dependent on temperature. It all relates the amount of energy
(enthalpy) in the air.

An example: at sea level, 101.325 kPa (will change with altitude and
pressure)
Starting with moist air, @ Dry bulb temp(Tdb) = 20deg C(68deg F), 60%
RH

Wet bulb temp (Twb) is 15.1deg C (59.2F) this is the temp that you
would feel if you were wet in some way eg. perspiration. This is also
how swamp coolers work.

specific volume of this air is 0.84 m^3/kg

the dewpoint (Tdp/100% RH) is 12.1 deg C

If you were to drop the temp of the air mixture to 12.1C the RH would
increase to 100% and you would start to get condensation. Decreasing
the air temp to 12.1 decreases the specific volume to 0.82 m^3/kg. At
100% RH the Twb and Tdb are the same, 12.1 deg C and the reason
perspiration doesn't cool you at high humidity rates.

increasing the temp to Tdb = 39C (102.2F):
RH ~ 20%
Twb ~ 21.4C (70.5F)
v ~ 0.9 m^3/kg

The humidity ratio is ~ 8.8 g moisture/kg dry air.


If anyone really wants (though I don't know why) I can send them a
psych chart for various altitudes and the formulas to work it all out.
Hope that helps a bit

-Steve (who thought he'd never use this when he took it in school :-)


(Captain Howdy) wrote in message
...
Where is Lester, he's a scientific type of a noob, maybe he can draw us

a
chart or a graph on this issue.


In article , "Peter"
wrote:
The temperature has nothing to do with the humidity level. Humidity
is a measure of the moisture content of the air. Hell, it's been
100% humidity here for a couple of days now an it hasn't gotten over
43 degrees.

Temperature has everything to do with humidity level. The warmer it is

the
more water vapor can air sustain without condensing. 100% humidity at

32F
means there's lot less water vapor in air than 100% at 100F. Basic

physics.

Peter




  #50   Report Post  
Captain Howdy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

That's because my day isn't complete without a little bit of Paul and Mark
controversy.


In article HxGOb.80533$Rc4.290728@attbi_s54, "Paul Vina"
wrote:
And yet he keeps coming back.........



Paul Vina



"Captain Howdy" wrote in message
news

Thanks Steve, That was a most interesting post. Its rare to learn anything

new
in here.


In article ,
(Stephen Shoihet) wrote:
Do a search for Psychrometrics. Look at a psych chart or try the psych
calc at
http://www.linric.com/webpsysi.htm

There are two measures of temperature, wet bulb and dry bulb. Dry bulb
is what a conventional thermometer measures (sensible heat). Wet bulb
temp is caused by evaporating water. The humidity that is given on the
weather is Relative humidity (as opposed to absolute humidity) and is
dependent on temperature. It all relates the amount of energy
(enthalpy) in the air.

An example: at sea level, 101.325 kPa (will change with altitude and
pressure)
Starting with moist air, @ Dry bulb temp(Tdb) = 20deg C(68deg F), 60%
RH

Wet bulb temp (Twb) is 15.1deg C (59.2F) this is the temp that you
would feel if you were wet in some way eg. perspiration. This is also
how swamp coolers work.

specific volume of this air is 0.84 m^3/kg

the dewpoint (Tdp/100% RH) is 12.1 deg C

If you were to drop the temp of the air mixture to 12.1C the RH would
increase to 100% and you would start to get condensation. Decreasing
the air temp to 12.1 decreases the specific volume to 0.82 m^3/kg. At
100% RH the Twb and Tdb are the same, 12.1 deg C and the reason
perspiration doesn't cool you at high humidity rates.

increasing the temp to Tdb = 39C (102.2F):
RH ~ 20%
Twb ~ 21.4C (70.5F)
v ~ 0.9 m^3/kg

The humidity ratio is ~ 8.8 g moisture/kg dry air.


If anyone really wants (though I don't know why) I can send them a
psych chart for various altitudes and the formulas to work it all out.
Hope that helps a bit

-Steve (who thought he'd never use this when he took it in school :-)


(Captain Howdy) wrote in message
...
Where is Lester, he's a scientific type of a noob, maybe he can draw us

a
chart or a graph on this issue.


In article , "Peter"
wrote:
The temperature has nothing to do with the humidity level. Humidity
is a measure of the moisture content of the air. Hell, it's been
100% humidity here for a couple of days now an it hasn't gotten over
43 degrees.

Temperature has everything to do with humidity level. The warmer it is

the
more water vapor can air sustain without condensing. 100% humidity at

32F
means there's lot less water vapor in air than 100% at 100F. Basic

physics.

Peter






  #51   Report Post  
Captain Howdy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

Is that bad ?


In article , "Mark Zarella"
wrote:
Thanks Steve, That was a most interesting post. Its rare to learn anything

new
in here.


Especially since you always insist on clinging on to old ideas.


  #52   Report Post  
Mark Zarella
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

Is that bad ?

When doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence, yes.


  #53   Report Post  
Captain Howdy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

What overwhelming evidence?


In article , "Mark Zarella"
wrote:
Is that bad ?


When doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence, yes.


  #54   Report Post  
Mark Zarella
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

Any overwhelming evidence. I'm referring to when someone refuses to change
their viewpoint even after being presented with evidence to the contrary.

"Captain Howdy" wrote in message
...
What overwhelming evidence?


In article , "Mark Zarella"
wrote:
Is that bad ?


When doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence, yes.




  #55   Report Post  
Tha Ghee
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
no, in the winter the air is DENSER,


Pressure is proportional to temperature.

less energy, and less water vapor.


Less water vapor would result in less density, not more. This is because
vapor displaces air.

the
more dense the less energy you need to keep the molecules moving.


that's what I said, look.




  #56   Report Post  
Tha Ghee
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

"Captain Howdy" wrote in message
...
Sounds like you have this ass backwards. Anything water logged would be
denser/heavier and harder to move vs the samething that is dry

you're getting air and solid materials confused, two worlds apart. just
think about it and you won't get backwards. just take it step by step and
you may understand.


  #57   Report Post  
Tha Ghee
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
Any overwhelming evidence. I'm referring to when someone refuses to

change
their viewpoint even after being presented with evidence to the contrary.

"Captain Howdy" wrote in message
...
What overwhelming evidence?


In article , "Mark Zarella"
wrote:
Is that bad ?

When doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence, yes.

I don't think Capt.. Howdy is keeping up I think he's looking thru purple
tinted glasses.


  #58   Report Post  
Tha Ghee
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
news
Okay fine, but wouldnt the water itself make the air denser?


nope less dense, the H2O is bigger so it takes up space and energy.


But the mere presence of the water is increasing density, when compared

with
the case where the water isn't there. You're not losing air molecules.
You're just adding water.

not necessarily is depends on the ambient temp. you can never loose
molecules just move them around or to a different state.


  #59   Report Post  
Mark Zarella
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

It looks like you said the opposite. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your words.

"Tha Ghee" wrote in message
...
"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
no, in the winter the air is DENSER,


Pressure is proportional to temperature.

less energy, and less water vapor.


Less water vapor would result in less density, not more. This is

because
vapor displaces air.

the
more dense the less energy you need to keep the molecules moving.


that's what I said, look.




  #60   Report Post  
Mark Zarella
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

But the mere presence of the water is increasing density, when compared
with
the case where the water isn't there. You're not losing air molecules.
You're just adding water.

not necessarily is depends on the ambient temp. you can never loose
molecules just move them around or to a different state.


Right. So if it's more humid, then the density should increase because the
water is participating in the transmission process, rather than sitting in
the lake.




  #61   Report Post  
Tha Ghee
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
It looks like you said the opposite. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your

words.

yes you did.


  #62   Report Post  
Tha Ghee
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
But the mere presence of the water is increasing density, when

compared
with
the case where the water isn't there. You're not losing air

molecules.
You're just adding water.

not necessarily is depends on the ambient temp. you can never loose
molecules just move them around or to a different state.


Right. So if it's more humid, then the density should increase because

the
water is participating in the transmission process, rather than sitting in
the lake.

density is less, there is more energy so the air is more spaced out.


  #63   Report Post  
Mark Zarella
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

Right. So if it's more humid, then the density should increase because
the
water is participating in the transmission process, rather than sitting

in
the lake.

density is less, there is more energy so the air is more spaced out.


How does density decrease by ADDING molecules? As I said before, you're
talking about adding water molecules. So unless the volume is getting
bigger or the air molecules are being displaced, the density of air is
increasing.


  #64   Report Post  
michael hardie
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

not sure if i have read everything in this thread, this may have been
addressed, but sound does travel better through liquids than solids, it's a
proven SCIENTIFIC fact..."Sound travels through gases, liquids, and solids
at different speeds. Sound travels through air at about 340 meters per
second; through water at about 1,500 meters per second, and through iron at
about 5,100 meters per second."
(http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/...?DOC=wondernet
%5Cgrownups%5Cgu_sound.html)




  #65   Report Post  
Captain Howdy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround


That makes me want to drop my sub box into a fish tank for more spl

In article , "michael hardie"
wrote:
not sure if i have read everything in this thread, this may have been
addressed, but sound does travel better through liquids than solids, it's a
proven SCIENTIFIC fact..."Sound travels through gases, liquids, and solids
at different speeds. Sound travels through air at about 340 meters per
second; through water at about 1,500 meters per second, and through iron at
about 5,100 meters per second."
(http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/...?DOC=wondernet
%5Cgrownups%5Cgu_sound.html)






  #66   Report Post  
michael hardie
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

i think you'd have to fill your car with water for the full effect.
btw my post should have been "... travels better through liquids and solids
than air"; damn my inability to type and think at the same time


Captain Howdy wrote in message
...

That makes me want to drop my sub box into a fish tank for more spl

In article , "michael hardie"
wrote:
not sure if i have read everything in this thread, this may have been
addressed, but sound does travel better through liquids than solids, it's

a
proven SCIENTIFIC fact..."Sound travels through gases, liquids, and

solids
at different speeds. Sound travels through air at about 340 meters per
second; through water at about 1,500 meters per second, and through iron

at
about 5,100 meters per second."


(http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/...l?DOC=wonderne

t
%5Cgrownups%5Cgu_sound.html)






  #67   Report Post  
Mark Zarella
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

i think you'd have to fill your car with water for the full effect.

That's correct. The interface between two different acoustical impedances
causes reflections which can result in significant attenuation.


  #68   Report Post  
Tha Ghee
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
Right. So if it's more humid, then the density should increase

because
the
water is participating in the transmission process, rather than

sitting
in
the lake.

density is less, there is more energy so the air is more spaced out.


How does density decrease by ADDING molecules? As I said before, you're
talking about adding water molecules. So unless the volume is getting
bigger or the air molecules are being displaced, the density of air is
increasing.

if your displacing something your making the density smaller.


  #69   Report Post  
Mark Zarella
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

How does density decrease by ADDING molecules? As I said before, you're
talking about adding water molecules. So unless the volume is getting
bigger or the air molecules are being displaced, the density of air is
increasing.

if your displacing something your making the density smaller.


sigh Nevermind.


  #70   Report Post  
wicked1
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

Mark do you have stress problems due to these conversations?

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
How does density decrease by ADDING molecules? As I said before,

you're
talking about adding water molecules. So unless the volume is getting
bigger or the air molecules are being displaced, the density of air is
increasing.

if your displacing something your making the density smaller.


sigh Nevermind.






  #71   Report Post  
Mark Zarella
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

Mark do you have stress problems due to these conversations?


No, it was his third strike. I shouldn't have to repeat the same thing over
and over yet have him continually ignore what I say.


  #72   Report Post  
Tha Ghee
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
Mark do you have stress problems due to these conversations?


No, it was his third strike. I shouldn't have to repeat the same thing

over
and over yet have him continually ignore what I say.

Is it my fault you don't make sense half the time so it takes a while to get
the point of your post who's fault is that??


  #73   Report Post  
Mark Zarella
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

No, it was his third strike. I shouldn't have to repeat the same thing
over
and over yet have him continually ignore what I say.

Is it my fault you don't make sense half the time so it takes a while to

get
the point of your post who's fault is that??


No one else seems to have a problem. I'm guessing that the person who
actually realizes that punctuation exists (and actually makes an attempt to
form coherent sentences) is probably making more sense than the person who
writes the sort of drivel that you post.

So what is it exactly that you didn't understand?


  #74   Report Post  
Stephen Shoihet
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

You're welcome, though it doesn't seem to have cleared things up much. (not
surprisingly :-)

I'll add a couple of things that might help further:

Two things decrease density, increasing temp and increasing humidity ratio
(grams moisture/kg dry air). Recognize that this is shown on a psychrometric
chart as an increase in specific volume which is the reciprocal of density
( 1/rho).

Similarly enthalpy (kJ/kg dry air) increases with increasing temp and
humidity ratio, requiring energy to cool the air and dehumidify it. Hot
humid air has higher energy than cold dry air.

Lastly, recall conservation of mass. There is no conservation of volume.

Clear as mud

-Steve


"Captain Howdy" wrote in message
news

Thanks Steve, That was a most interesting post. Its rare to learn anything

new
in here.



  #75   Report Post  
Tha Ghee
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
No, it was his third strike. I shouldn't have to repeat the same

thing
over
and over yet have him continually ignore what I say.

Is it my fault you don't make sense half the time so it takes a while to

get
the point of your post who's fault is that??


No one else seems to have a problem. I'm guessing that the person who
actually realizes that punctuation exists (and actually makes an attempt

to
form coherent sentences) is probably making more sense than the person who
writes the sort of drivel that you post.

So what is it exactly that you didn't understand?

trust me Mark plenty of people can't understand what you say but are scared
to say something because you and other jump all over them. I sorry Mark but
my writing skills are not great but they're worlds better than yours.




  #76   Report Post  
Mark Zarella
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

trust me Mark plenty of people can't understand what you say but are
scared
to say something because you and other jump all over them. I sorry Mark

but
my writing skills are not great but they're worlds better than yours.


If you say so.

Or, translated into "gheeish":

i u say, so


  #77   Report Post  
Soundfreak03
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround


I sorry Mark but
my writing skills are not great but they're worlds better than yours.


Ghee, maybe in your mind you writing skills are good but TRUST ME they are not.
But hey I don't fault you for it because it would seem that English is not your
first langauge. Right?

Les
  #78   Report Post  
TheBIessedDead
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

trust me Mark plenty of people can't understand what you say but are
scared
to say something because you and other jump all over them. I sorry Mark

but
my writing skills are not great but they're worlds better than yours.



There are definetely times that I don't understand what Mark is saying, but
that has absolutely nothing to do with his grammar. His electrical knowledge
is far beyond me sometimes.

As far as Ghee claiming that his writing skills are superior to ANYONE..... all
I can do is laugh.

Nick

  #80   Report Post  
Tha Ghee
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cold temperatures vs. sub surround

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
trust me Mark plenty of people can't understand what you say but are

scared
to say something because you and other jump all over them. I sorry Mark

but
my writing skills are not great but they're worlds better than yours.


If you say so.

Or, translated into "gheeish":

i u say, so

if you don't believe me just look at your old post and run them near a spell
checker and it'll choke. but its cool.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Surround & Throughout House? Steve Blackwell General 7 March 15th 04 01:59 AM
How to Achieve Best Surround Sound Results without a Processor Gamer General 5 January 12th 04 10:19 PM
How to go Surround Sound?? rick donnelly Car Audio 4 December 1st 03 08:40 PM
Surround glue?? sanitarium Car Audio 5 October 11th 03 07:04 AM
Punch XLC 8"...broken surround...HELP! Sanitarium Car Audio 0 July 9th 03 07:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:25 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"