Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#82
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
|
#83
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"Martin Brown" wrote in
message ups.com On Oct 2, 9:33 pm, John Larkin wrote: On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:20:18 GMT, Rich Grise wrote: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:38:52 +0000, Paul Stamler wrote: Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor. Actually, in its pure form it's a fairly good insulator. Agreed. Although it doesn't stay pure for very long in a closed circuit in contact with most common metals used for heat sinks. You need the right surface passivators in it to avoid rapid corrosion. Ultra pure water is surprisingly corrosive towards most metals - something which has caught people out in the past. Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on earth. Yup. You can water-cool the anode of a transmitting tube, 20KV off ground or so, with pure water flowing through plastic tubes. So long as the water is kept pure and the right corrosion inhibitors are used. Nevertheless, most people seem to take the time to figure out how to keep the tube's anodes at chassis ground. |
#84
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message ... Oddly enough, Hagerman (presumably the designer of this gadget) has made some more-than-decent, well-designed and cost-effective phono preamp designs over the years. Wonder what happened. He realised there were an awful lot of gullible audiophools out there that had money to spend? Phildo |
#85
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:53:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on earth. Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water. The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not anti-bacterial, it's not soap. |
#86
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:29:02 +0200, David Brown wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote: On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:53:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on earth. Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water. The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not anti-bacterial, it's not soap. Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat? Thanks, Rich |
#87
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
Rich Grise wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:29:02 +0200, David Brown wrote: ChairmanOfTheBored wrote: On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:53:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on earth. Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water. The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not anti-bacterial, it's not soap. Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat? Yes. It was one of the major products from whale hunting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap |
#88
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
In article ,
David Brown wrote: Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water. The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not anti-bacterial, it's not soap. Apparently soap also has anti-viral benefits, in at least some cases. It's important to wash out animal-bite wounds with soap and water, as the soap will help denature any rabies virus which may be present. Using a topical antiseptic may not have the same benefit. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#89
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Oct 4, 1:05 pm, David Brown
wrote: Rich Grise wrote: On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:29:02 +0200, David Brown wrote: ChairmanOfTheBored wrote: On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:53:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on earth. Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water. The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not anti-bacterial, it's not soap. Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat? Yes. It was one of the major products from whale hunting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap The word "whale" does not appear in the wikipedia article you cited. |
#90
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"Rich Grise" wrote ...
David Brown wrote: ChairmanOfTheBored wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote: Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on earth. Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water. The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not anti-bacterial, it's not soap. Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat? But the strong alkalies in the ashes chemically changed the fat by a process called "saponification". At least that is my understanding since I know nothing about organic chemistry. http://www.cleaning101.com/cleaning/chemistry/ http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/blsapon.htm |
#91
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
ACTUALLY, the soap reduces the surface tension of the water so
that it can undermine the dirt wherever it resides. THEN it can be put into suspension. If it were not for the water, there would be no cleaning, and nothing to suspend. Are you ever wrong. Try washing your hands with GoJo or a similar product. |
#92
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
|
#93
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
In article ,
krw wrote: Apparently soap also has anti-viral benefits, in at least some cases. It's important to wash out animal-bite wounds with soap and water, as the soap will help denature any rabies virus which may be present. Using a topical antiseptic may not have the same benefit. I thought the idea was to wash away the virus, rather than "killing" it. ...same with bacteria. Both effects are beneficial, of course. I believe that soapy water provides both forms of protection... it'll help remove much of the virus load, and denature much of what's left on the skin. I saw a news item recently which gave soap-and-water washes strong points over simple disinfection (i.e. alcohol-based gels) in another case... in cases where bacteria with spore-forming abilities are present. Seems that alcohol doesn't work terribly well against the spores (since they're dehydration-resistant, and that's alcohol's primary way of killing bacteria). -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#94
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
Dave Platt wrote:
Both effects are beneficial, of course. I believe that soapy water provides both forms of protection... it'll help remove much of the virus load, and denature much of what's left on the skin. The primary means of disenfecting the hands of surgeons and nurses scrubbing in the OR is the physical act of "scrubbing" and "flooding" with water. Lumpy You were the "OPERATION" game voice? Yes. Take out wrenched ankle. www.LumpyVoice.com |
#95
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
|
#96
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:39:59 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:
ACTUALLY, the soap reduces the surface tension of the water so that it can undermine the dirt wherever it resides. THEN it can be put into suspension. If it were not for the water, there would be no cleaning, and nothing to suspend. Are you ever wrong. Try washing your hands with GoJo or a similar product. I never use that kind of crap. I just hate for my hands to feel greasier after I wash them than they did before. If my hands get really grubby (which they do when your office opens onto a fab shop) I use cleanser. ;-) Thanks, Rich |
#97
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:11:18 -0700, Lumpy wrote:
Dave Platt wrote: Both effects are beneficial, of course. I believe that soapy water provides both forms of protection... it'll help remove much of the virus load, and denature much of what's left on the skin. The primary means of disenfecting the hands of surgeons and nurses scrubbing in the OR is the physical act of "scrubbing" and "flooding" with water. I wonder if they use ordinary tap water, or if their hand-washing water is specially sterilized? Thanks, Rich |
#98
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:11:18 -0700, Lumpy wrote: Dave Platt wrote: Both effects are beneficial, of course. I believe that soapy water provides both forms of protection... it'll help remove much of the virus load, and denature much of what's left on the skin. The primary means of disenfecting the hands of surgeons and nurses scrubbing in the OR is the physical act of "scrubbing" and "flooding" with water. There was a time when surgeons washed with pHisohex. The hexachlorophene (supposedly) sticks to the skin and provides residual, continuing antibacterial action. |
#99
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"Rich Grise" wrote in message news On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:11:18 -0700, Lumpy wrote: Dave Platt wrote: Both effects are beneficial, of course. I believe that soapy water provides both forms of protection... it'll help remove much of the virus load, and denature much of what's left on the skin. The primary means of disenfecting the hands of surgeons and nurses scrubbing in the OR is the physical act of "scrubbing" and "flooding" with water. I wonder if they use ordinary tap water, or if their hand-washing water is specially sterilized? I know at the hospital where I had my surgery it was sterilised. Phildo |
#100
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
Richard Henry wrote:
On Oct 4, 1:05 pm, David Brown wrote: Rich Grise wrote: On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:29:02 +0200, David Brown wrote: ChairmanOfTheBored wrote: On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:53:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on earth. Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water. The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not anti-bacterial, it's not soap. Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat? Yes. It was one of the major products from whale hunting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap The word "whale" does not appear in the wikipedia article you cited. I know - the two lines of my reply are independent. I added the wikipedia reference to give people more information about how soap works. I think it's a little strange that the wikipedia article does not mention whales - at the peak of the whaling industries in Scotland and Canada, I believe most high-quality soap came from whale oil. |
#101
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat? Yes. It was one of the major products from whale hunting. I don't think that's correct. Whale fat was rendered for lamp oil, among other things. There'd be no point in using it for soap, when other animal fats were so readily available. http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-641432/whale-oil There is no doubt that whale oil was made into soap, although I'm beginning to doubt my claim that it was a "major" product - I haven't found many references on the net. Perhaps it was a more local phenomenon that I thought, and was more restricted to whaling nations rather than exported. |
#102
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
Dave Platt wrote:
In article , David Brown wrote: Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water. The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not anti-bacterial, it's not soap. Apparently soap also has anti-viral benefits, in at least some cases. It's important to wash out animal-bite wounds with soap and water, as the soap will help denature any rabies virus which may be present. Using a topical antiseptic may not have the same benefit. I think that's more a matter of hot soap and water being a good general cleaner - you wash the virus particles off the wound. That's different from with bacteria, as the soap will kill the bacteria by destroying their cell walls. Viruses have a protein shell, rather than a fatty wall, and are not directly affected by the soap. |
#103
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:25:18 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
wrote: On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:05:13 +0200, David Brown wrote: Rich Grise wrote: On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:29:02 +0200, David Brown wrote: ChairmanOfTheBored wrote: On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:53:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Pure water is about the closest thing to a universal solvent there is on earth. Exactly. When you wash your hands, it's the water that does most of the work. The soap is merely for reducing the surface tension of the water. The soap also breaks down fat molecules, so that they can then dissolve in water (or at least emulsify in the water). That's why soap is crucial for hygiene - it destroys the fatty cell walls of bacteria. I always think it's amusing to see "anti-bacterial soap" - if it's not anti-bacterial, it's not soap. Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat? Yes. It was one of the major products from whale hunting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap It was actually most often made from beef tallow here in the US. Whale product that was and still is the most sought after is whale oil for use in race car differential gear housings. Any gyro bearings in inertial guidance systems. John |
#104
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:09:37 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Rich Grise" wrote in message On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:11:18 -0700, Lumpy wrote: Dave Platt wrote: Both effects are beneficial, of course. I believe that soapy water provides both forms of protection... it'll help remove much of the virus load, and denature much of what's left on the skin. The primary means of disenfecting the hands of surgeons and nurses scrubbing in the OR is the physical act of "scrubbing" and "flooding" with water. There was a time when surgeons washed with pHisohex. The hexachlorophene (supposedly) sticks to the skin and provides residual, continuing antibacterial action. I was once at the medical hobby shop[1] on some air base, and some guy came in and asked for some Phisohex; the nurse guy at the counter said, "Oh, that's just hexachlorophene; it's the same thing used in some OTC "deodorant" soap that I don't remember the name of." Cheers! Rich [1] That's the popular term on air bases for the base hospital - all the workers there are GIs too, you know. ;-) |
#105
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
John Larkin wrote: "Phildo" wrote: Hint - I live across the pond on the island that originally invented your country until you took it and f*cked it up. They have no idea where their country and language originated. Where did the population and language of that island originate? Where did your family originate ? And why isn't it speaking German today? Because the Germans lost the Battle of Britain. Graham |
#106
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote: Even over there, the proper word is STERILIZED. Your ignorance, arrogance and stupidity apparently know no bounds. Typical American in fact. Graham |
#107
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"GoldIntermetallicEmbrittlement"
g wrote in message ... [Hexachlorophene] is also the same **** that was banned for decades due to carcinogenic fears. No, it was banned because it was considered a poison. Some babies in France died after inhaling (?) baby powder containing hexachlorophene. Everybody got scared. Instead of banning specific products, all consumer OTC use was banned. I used pHisohex when I had acne. I still have a bottle or two of pHisoderm to wash my hands when they're unusually dirty, or need a bit of moisturizing. |
#108
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:06:53 +0200, David Brown wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: Didn't they once make soap out of ashes and animal fat? Yes. It was one of the major products from whale hunting. I don't think that's correct. Whale fat was rendered for lamp oil, among other things. There'd be no point in using it for soap, when other animal fats were so readily available. http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-641432/whale-oil There is no doubt that whale oil was made into soap, Bull****. Whale TALLOW MAYBE, but whale oil was far more profitable to utilize in other areas. You didn't try the link, did you? It seems that whale fat was converted into oil, and whale oil into fat, depending on what had the greatest market demand at the time. So whale oil *was* made into soap (after first hydrogenating it to a fat), but most whale soap was made directly from whale fat. |
#109
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"David Brown" wrote in message
... It seems that whale fat was converted into oil, and whale oil into fat, depending on what had the greatest market demand at the time. So whale oil *was* made into soap (after first hydrogenating it to a fat), but most whale soap was made directly from whale fat. I'm a bit confused here. Whale oil was (AFAIK) derived from blubber by rendering it. I wouldn't call this "conversion", but rather extraction. (One does not "convert" peanuts into peanut oil, other than in the metaphorical sense -- "He converted his stock holdings into cash".) I don't understand the distinction between fats and oils. Aren't oils fats? I doubt whalers were making their own Crisco on-board (though I'm sure some would have appreciated its lubricating ahem properties). If you believe the Wikipedia article, commercial hydrogenation did not occur before 1905. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogenation The Wikipedia article on Crisco states that it was first produced in 1911. The name is derived from "crystallized cottonseed oil". It was originally intended for candles! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisco When I think of Crisco, I can't help but think of Bob & Ray's spoofs -- "It's so digestible!" |
#110
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"David Brown" wrote in message ... It seems that whale fat was converted into oil, and whale oil into fat, depending on what had the greatest market demand at the time. So whale oil *was* made into soap (after first hydrogenating it to a fat), but most whale soap was made directly from whale fat. I'm a bit confused here. Whale oil was (AFAIK) derived from blubber by rendering it. I wouldn't call this "conversion", but rather extraction. (One does not "convert" peanuts into peanut oil, other than in the metaphorical sense -- "He converted his stock holdings into cash".) I'm afraid I can't help you out of your confusion - I don't know the details myself. All I know about the subject is that one of the products from whales was soap, and beyond that what I've read in the Wikipedia and Britanica articles mentioned, which imply (amongst other things) that whale oil was hydrogenated to fat. I'd agree that this sounds a bit odd if the oil itself came first from the blubber (which is, after all, fat). As far as the distinction between oils and fats goes, I think they are basically the same thing but with different chain lengths (and hence different physical properties such as melting points) depending on the addition or subtraction of hydrogen. But again, I can't say I know a lot about this, so I'm happy to be corrected. mvh., David I don't understand the distinction between fats and oils. Aren't oils fats? I doubt whalers were making their own Crisco on-board (though I'm sure some would have appreciated its lubricating ahem properties). If you believe the Wikipedia article, commercial hydrogenation did not occur before 1905. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogenation The Wikipedia article on Crisco states that it was first produced in 1911. The name is derived from "crystallized cottonseed oil". It was originally intended for candles! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisco When I think of Crisco, I can't help but think of Bob & Ray's spoofs -- "It's so digestible!" |
#111
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
In article , David Brown wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote: "David Brown" wrote in message ... It seems that whale fat was converted into oil, and whale oil into fat, depending on what had the greatest market demand at the time. So whale oil *was* made into soap (after first hydrogenating it to a fat), but most whale soap was made directly from whale fat. I'm a bit confused here. Whale oil was (AFAIK) derived from blubber by rendering it. I wouldn't call this "conversion", but rather extraction. (One does not "convert" peanuts into peanut oil, other than in the metaphorical sense -- "He converted his stock holdings into cash".) I'm afraid I can't help you out of your confusion - I don't know the details myself. All I know about the subject is that one of the products from whales was soap, and beyond that what I've read in the Wikipedia and Britanica articles mentioned, which imply (amongst other things) that whale oil was hydrogenated to fat. I'd agree that this sounds a bit odd if the oil itself came first from the blubber (which is, after all, fat). Oils of the kind that are glyceryl esters of fatty acids are classified as fats, no matter how liquid they are, at least as food substance classification if you are going to eat food having these. They also work for making soap, though vegetable oils may well make soaps less desirable than those made from animal fats. Meanwhile, sperm whales have some oil reservoir within themselves which contain "spermaceti" or "sperm oil", separate from blubber, which was particularly desirable for some reasons but it was still both dietarily an animal fat and chemically a fat. As far as the distinction between oils and fats goes, I think they are basically the same thing but with different chain lengths (and hence different physical properties such as melting points) depending on the addition or subtraction of hydrogen. But again, I can't say I know a lot about this, so I'm happy to be corrected. Another thing: Cis/trans versions of chain orientation about double bonds. One example: Oleic acid vs. elaidic acid (along with glyceryl esters of these). Both are C18 monounsaturated fatty acids with the double bond in the same position (I somewhat remember "#9", as in between the 9th and 10th carbon atoms down the chain if the carbon atom in the carboxylic end is counted as #1). The only difference is that oleic is "cis" and elaidic is "trans". Oleic acid and elaidic acid have very different melting points (elaidic is solid even at human body temperature). Most trans fatty acids and glyceryl esters thereof in the average American diet come from partial hydrogenation of polyunsaturated fats in vegetable oils. - Don Klipstein ) |
#112
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"John Larkin" wrote in message ... Hint - I live across the pond on the island that originally invented your country until you took it and f*cked it up. They have no idea where their country and language originated. Where did the population and language of that island originate? Various places same as every country in the world, especially yours. And why isn't it speaking German today? Because we kicked German butt (with a little help from you guys because you had no other real choice), even though the grandfather of your current president saw fit to supply war materials to the Nazis instead. They have no idea where their country and language originated. Absurd. Sadly true. Come on, people over there actually believe FOX news. While it is certainly not true of all septics, there is an awful lot of very gullible and clueless people over there. Phildo |
#113
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message ... On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 01:29:12 +0100, "Phildo" wrote: "ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message . .. I know at the hospital where I had my surgery it was sterilised. That's Z for STERILIZED, Typical septic, cannot comprehend that there is a world outside their own country and have *******ised the language that they borrowed from us. It was intentional, ****tard. So much for what you think you know. Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerant. Hint - I don't need any hints from a ****tard like you. Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerant I live across the pond on the island that originally invented your country until you took it and f*cked it up. They have no idea where their country and language originated. So much for what you know about your own word derivatives and origins. Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerant Yeah right, you ****ing retard. The word STERILE is a British origin word. Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerant The word STERILIZE is as well, and dates back to 1695, but there IS NO word sterilise or sterilised. Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerant So **** off with your "we're from across the pond" retarded baby bull****. Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerant Yes, you are that. You and the other ****ing ASS retard should learn how to spell. I can spell just fine. You should learn to recognise it. I'm sorry my intellect is such that it flies waaaaaay over your head but keep up with the English lessons and you might get a clue one day. Phildo |
#114
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message ... He's a ****ing idiot, and he got it just as wrong as the DonkTard did. Even over there, the proper word is STERILIZED. Not according to my sources but then you spetics can never see across your own borders unless it is to steal oil away from another country under the pretence of looking for (non-existant) WMDs. Origin 1695. No entry at all for sterilised. Source? Phildo |
#115
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message ... Your country needs to be sterilized of ****ing scum like you. Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerent Phildo |
#116
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:36:28 +0100, Phildo wrote:
"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message ... Your country needs to be sterilized of ****ing scum like you. Typical septic. Foul-mouthed, ignorant and belligerent Oops! For a minute there, I thought you'd said, "skeptic". ;-) Septic does make much more sense. Thanks! Rich |
#117
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:28:02 +0100, "Phildo" wrote:
Sadly true. Come on, people over there actually believe FOX news. Did you learn that from BBC News? http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...business-enter John |
#118
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:19:54 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
wrote: Because we kicked German butt (with a little help from you guys because you had no other real choice), You're a goddamned idiot. We were sending YOU ships FULL of materiel, which you desperately needed for YOUR war machine, so if it weren't for us EARLY in YOUR part of the war, you would have fallen to them, and we THEN would have had to come over and clean up an even bigger pool of blood than was there when we did go. Oh, was there a tradition of cleaning up afterwards in those days? One we could well bring back. |
#119
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message ... On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:28:02 +0100, "Phildo" wrote: Because we kicked German butt (with a little help from you guys because you had no other real choice), You're a goddamned idiot. We were sending YOU ships FULL of materiel, which you desperately needed for YOUR war machine, Yeah, which you made us pay through the nose for. so if it weren't for us EARLY in YOUR part of the war, you would have fallen to them, and we THEN would have had to come over and clean up an even bigger pool of blood than was there when we did go. You really think the US would allow a facist dictatorship to control most of Europe? Get your **** straight, boy. I suggest you take your own advice. Remember, things were very different back then than they are today. You seem to see the past through how your country acts today. Phildo |
#120
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"John Larkin" wrote in message ... On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:28:02 +0100, "Phildo" wrote: Sadly true. Come on, people over there actually believe FOX news. Did you learn that from BBC News? No, from living in the US for 4 years and reading the crap people post on usenet. Amazing how gullible the majority of the US population is. Phildo |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
New audiophile device brought to our attention | Pro Audio | |||
McIntoshes Brought Out Of Storage | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Adobe Audition 1.5: Record from device A, play full mix through device B (while recording?) | Pro Audio | |||
ATTENTION at | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Ipod audiophile device? | High End Audio |