21 Jun
2009
21 Jun
'09
3:38 p.m.
Today's Topics:
1. lovely weather (Dave Phillips)
2. Re: lovely weather (Folderol)
3. Re: lovely weather (Russell Hanaghan)
4. Re: lovely weather (J?rn Nettingsmeier)
5. Re: lovely weather (Dave Phillips)
6. Re: lovely weather (Christoph Eckert)
7. Re: lovely weather (Fons Adriaensen)
8. Re: lovely weather (Atte Andre Jensen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:08:52 -0400
From: Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com>
Subject: [LAU] lovely weather
To: LAU <linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
Message-ID: <4A3D17A4.6050603(a)woh.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Greetings,
In fact, we've had some terrible weather. Yesterday morning we had the
heaviest thunderstorm of the year so far, complete with great dark
rumbling skies and pyrotechnical displays of lightning. Lots and lots of
lightning.
Can you tell where this message is going ?
I like to think I'm not utterly deranged, so as a matter of course I
disconnect the power lines to my gear whenever we have a heavy storm.
And so I did this time, except I didn't unplug the cable modem
connection. Well, live and learn, and so I have, to the combined
expense of one modem, one router, and one laptop. (Sounds kinda like a
John Lee Hooker song). I'm actually happy the damage didn't include the
two desktop boxes also connected to the router.
I'll remember that cable connection next time, I promise.
Grumble...
Best,
dp
Dave, very sorry to hear that!
Are surge protectors insufficient to protect sensitive audio equipment? We
have started to use surge protectors to connect all our electronics to
outlets, and they seem to have helped immensely. they have something like
$75,000 equipment warranties but i don't want to take chances with replacing
or repairing my audio equipment (what a hassle!) if something does happen.
on the other hand, i don't care if my tv gets fried :)
ethan
21 Jun
21 Jun
6:09 p.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
ethan a young wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:08:52 -0400
From: Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com
<mailto:dlphillips@woh.rr.com>>
Subject: [LAU] lovely weather
To: LAU <linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
<mailto:linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>>
Message-ID: <4A3D17A4.6050603(a)woh.rr.com
<mailto:4A3D17A4.6050603@woh.rr.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Greetings,
In fact, we've had some terrible weather. Yesterday morning we had the
heaviest thunderstorm of the year so far, complete with great dark
rumbling skies and pyrotechnical displays of lightning. Lots and lots of
lightning.
Can you tell where this message is going ?
I like to think I'm not utterly deranged, so as a matter of course I
disconnect the power lines to my gear whenever we have a heavy storm.
And so I did this time, except I didn't unplug the cable modem
connection. Well, live and learn, and so I have, to the combined
expense of one modem, one router, and one laptop. (Sounds kinda like a
John Lee Hooker song). I'm actually happy the damage didn't include the
two desktop boxes also connected to the router.
I'll remember that cable connection next time, I promise.
Grumble...
Best,
dp
Dave, very sorry to hear that!
Are surge protectors insufficient to protect sensitive audio equipment?
We have started to use surge protectors to connect all our electronics
to outlets, and they seem to have helped immensely. they have something
like $75,000 equipment warranties but i don't want to take chances with
replacing or repairing my audio equipment (what a hassle!) if something
does happen. on the other hand, i don't care if my tv gets fried :)
Not much protects against lightning. Even unplugging from the mains
might not - lightning is powerful enough to jump across insulator gaps.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
22 Jun
22 Jun
8:44 p.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
david wrote:
Not much protects against lightning. Even unplugging
from the mains
might not - lightning is powerful enough to jump across insulator gaps.
Very true, David. I don't know of *anything* that will stop lightning
directly.
I work in the insurance industry (in Central United States) and take
initial claim reports.
Just took one today where a lightning strike nearby took out a
policyholder's Central Air Conditioning system. My first suggestion
to the insured was to check his furnace and everything else that is
powered by electricity in his home, including things that were not
plugged in at the time of the electrical storm.
While we were talking about his next steps to recover from this event,
his wife called out that (sure enough) the furnace was not coming on.
Dave, if you're still following this thread, be sure to check
everything in the home that is electric powered. If you wait till the
fall to turn on your furnace and find out it doesn't work, your
insurance company may think it's a separate claim and charge you a
second deductible.
Best,
Stephen.
11:20 p.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
On Monday 22 June 2009 20:44:05 TheOther wrote:
david wrote:
The opposite works though. Tesla was allegedly quite succesfull at attracting
strange weather conditions around his lab, with all his magnets.
But yeah, unplugging the laptop as the thunderstorm was closing in might have
helped.
Also, as far as I know, high buildings usually have thunder-antenna's (? not
sure of the English word; though I just read that Benjamin Franklin invented
them) which are supposed to catch lightning for you and bring it to ground, so
that lower (parts of the) buildings in the surroundings are not as likely to
get caught.
I guess you could put one of these on your house, so that if you get lightning
in your house, it'll be more likely to go to there, rather than get into your
electricity net.
sincerely,
Marije
Not much protects against lightning. Even
unplugging from the mains
might not - lightning is powerful enough to jump across insulator gaps.
Very true, David. I don't know of *anything* that will stop lightning
directly. 
23 Jun
23 Jun
2:21 a.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
I used to live in the midwest and experienced more violent storms then I can remember.
Lighting is a lot of energy during a very short time. Being near a large strike will
subject your equipment to a rather big emf pulse. The only way to avoid most damage is to
disconnect everything that's attached to everything else; so that there are no wires
that can act as antenna to pick up a pulse and blow out what the wire is connected to.
A lot of the surge protectors are really protection for surges across the line. They help
somewhat when there's a sharp spike of voltage on the power line, or sometimes if
there's a mild amount of static on the cable/phone/dsl line. They're good when
you have lousy power or a bad storm is approaching, but can't be trusted to do much
during a violent thunder storm.
Unfortunately, lighting has it's own rules, mostly producing what seems to be total
chaos in potential differences in the air around it. And of course, there's those
pulses. I had a friend who was sitting in a room during a storm and a small lighting
strike entered some part of the house. There was a discharge across the room and over his
head, at least that's what others saw, because he didn't remember a thing.
4:18 a.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
Tracey Hytry wrote:
I used to live in the midwest and experienced more
violent storms
then I can remember.
Lighting is a lot of energy during a very short time. Being near a
large strike will subject your equipment to a rather big emf pulse.
The only way to avoid most damage is to disconnect everything that's
attached to everything else; so that there are no wires that can act
as antenna to pick up a pulse and blow out what the wire is connected
to.
A lot of the surge protectors are really protection for surges across
the line. They help somewhat when there's a sharp spike of voltage
on the power line, or sometimes if there's a mild amount of static on
the cable/phone/dsl line. They're good when you have lousy power or
a bad storm is approaching, but can't be trusted to do much during a
violent thunder storm.
Unfortunately, lighting has it's own rules, mostly producing what
seems to be total chaos in potential differences in the air around
it. And of course, there's those pulses. I had a friend who was
sitting in a room during a storm and a small lighting strike entered
some part of the house. There was a discharge across the room and
over his head, at least that's what others saw, because he didn't
remember a thing.
I have a friend who owns a small farm in Illinois (6000 acres). A couple
of times now, he's been out in the field working on or near large
farming equipment when lightning struck. One time, he came to on the
other side of the equipment from where'd he been working!
Hawaii's pretty tame on lightning ...
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
9:11 a.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
david wrote:
I have a friend who owns a small farm in Illinois
(6000 acres). A couple
of times now, he's been out in the field working on or near large
farming equipment when lightning struck. One time, he came to on the
other side of the equipment from where'd he been working!
Hawaii's pretty tame on lightning ...
Small farm....6000 acres of Illinois farmland... Boy *that* brought a
smile to my face.
I'm now living in Champaign, Illinois, in the heart of Illinois
farmland. Very little livestock, most farmers are grain farmers.
It's the 6000 acres that made me smile. Let's see, there's 640 acres
to a section, and a section of land is 1 mile by 1 mile, or a 1 mile
square. 6000 acres would be 9.375 square miles of some of the most
prime farmland in the entire United States. If all of his land was
contiguous, he'd own something like 3 miles by 3 miles, and then some.
Land around here can sell for 25,000 USD per acre. So he's got
around $150,000,000 in land value alone. I wouldn't call that a
*small* farm, and I'm wondering what he's doing working it by himself!
Now when I spent some time in the cattle and sheep areas of North
Dakota, 6000 acres would be just about right for a small ranch. Slope
county in North Dakota (western side, near the Montana border) was 40
miles by 30 miles roughly, around 1,200 square miles. There were 2
towns in the entire county, one of around 200 people and the other
around 125. If you saw a tree, it was probably planted at a ranch
house. You won't see many trees or people in Slope county. You can
see some buffalo, though.
Best,
Stephen.
9:34 a.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 08:11:30AM -0500, TheOther wrote:
Let's see, there's 640 acres to a section, and
a section of
land is 1 mile by 1 mile, or a 1 mile square.
Incredible, those units !
So a square piece of one acre would have a size of
1 mile / sqrt(640). That square root is not an integer.
Is this the definition of 1 acre ?
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.
12:59 p.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)kokkinizita.net>wrote;wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 08:11:30AM -0500, TheOther
wrote:
In old days (long before you and me) an acre was the amount of land a man
and an ox could plow in a day :) One day in the distant future the USA will
adopt metric. Or not. Mind you, we did here in Canada 20+ (30?) years ago
and we still talk about miles, acres, pounds and inches. Instead of a metric
or imperial system we have a bit of both.
--
**** Listen to my CD at http://www.mellowood.ca/music/cedars ****
Bob van der Poel ** Wynndel, British Columbia, CANADA **
EMAIL: bob(a)mellowood.ca
WWW: http://www.mellowood.ca
Let's see, there's 640 acres to a
section, and a section of
land is 1 mile by 1 mile, or a 1 mile square.
Incredible, those units !
So a square piece of one acre would have a size of
1 mile / sqrt(640). That square root is not an integer.
Is this the definition of 1 acre ?
1:41 p.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 12:59:49 Bob van der Poel wrote:
I still find it astonishing that with all their ideas of freedom, they insist
on keeping this imperial system :)
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Fons Adriaensen
<fons(a)kokkinizita.net>wrote;wrote:
On Tue, Jun
23, 2009 at 08:11:30AM -0500, TheOther wrote:
In old days (long before you and me) an acre was the amount of land a man
and an ox could plow in a day :) One day in the distant future the USA
will adopt metric. Let's see, there's 640 acres to a
section, and a section of
land is 1 mile by 1 mile, or a 1 mile square.
Incredible, those units !
So a square piece of one acre would have a size of
1 mile / sqrt(640). That square root is not an integer.
Is this the definition of 1 acre ? Or not. Mind you, we did here in Canada 20+ (30?)
years
ago and we still talk about miles, acres, pounds and inches. Instead of a
metric or imperial system we have a bit of both.
Mostly for practical reasons, as I understand... with a lot of products coming
from our southern neighbours...
But yes, Canada is a bit confused about which measurement system to use. It
gets even more confusing in the french part here ;)
sincerely,
Marije
24 Jun
24 Jun
8:03 a.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
nescivi wrote:
But yes, Canada is a bit confused about which
measurement system to use. It
gets even more confusing in the french part here ;)
Same story here in the UK. Officially the government has adopted the
metric system - so food and other products are sold in kilograms,
litres, metres, etc.
But pints of beer are still pints of beer, and all road signs still use
miles and yards.
8:57 a.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 08:11:30AM -0500, TheOther
wrote:
Hello Fons,
You can Google an acre for the definition. I found this definition to
be accurate and somewhat easier to understand:
The Question:
We are trying to find feet measurement for an acre—not the square
footage. Can you please help?
The Answer:
Because an acre is a measure of area, not length, it is defined in
square feet. An acre can be of any shape—a rectangle, a triangle, a
circle, or even a star—so long as its area is exactly 43,560 square feet.
The most standard shape for an acre is one furlong by one chain, or
660 feet by 66 feet. To find the linear measurements of other
rectangular acres, just divide 43,560 by the number of feet you want
on one side. A square-shaped acre would then be about 208.7 by 208.7
feet (because 208.7 x 208.7 = ~43,560). An acre 100 feet wide would be
435.6 feet long (100 x 435.6 = 43,560) and an acre 1 foot wide would
be 43,560 feet long.
The acre, by the way, was originally an English unit of measurement
that described the area that a yoke of oxen could plow in a day. It
originally differed in size from one area to the next, but was
ultimately fixed at 4,840 square yards, or 160 square chains (its
current size).
—The Editors
Note, you also get the definition of a furlong (sometimes still used
in American horse racing for the length of the race). A furlong is 10
chains.
Then for the definition of a chain:
A chain is a unit of length; it measures 66 feet or 22 yards or 4 rods
or 100 links. There are 10 chains in a furlong, and 80 furlongs in one
statute mile. An acre is the area of 10 square chains (that is, an
area of one chain by one furlong). The chain has been used for several
centuries in Britain and in some other countries influenced by British
practice.
Some legal descriptions of plots of land in the USA still use these
antiquated measurements. Back in my surveying days, this nearly
always required having good math skills or a calculator handy for the
conversions!
Best,
Stephen.
Let's see, there's 640 acres to a
section, and a section of
land is 1 mile by 1 mile, or a 1 mile square.
Incredible, those units !
So a square piece of one acre would have a size of
1 mile / sqrt(640). That square root is not an integer.
Is this the definition of 1 acre ?
2:20 p.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:57:39 -0500
TheOther <theother1510(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
<snip>
As a point of interest, chains are still used as a linear measurement
by the railways in the UK.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 08:11:30AM -0500,
TheOther wrote:
Hello Fons,
You can Google an acre for the definition. I found this definition to
be accurate and somewhat easier to understand:
The Question:
We are trying to find feet measurement for an acre—not the square
footage. Can you please help? Let's see, there's 640 acres to a
section, and a section of
land is 1 mile by 1 mile, or a 1 mile square.
Incredible, those units !
So a square piece of one acre would have a size of
1 mile / sqrt(640). That square root is not an integer.
Is this the definition of 1 acre ?
2:48 a.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
TheOther wrote:
david wrote:
He described it as small. I understand by comparison to many other farms
in the area at the time, it was small.
That was many years ago - haven't had any contact with him since.
I have a friend who owns a small farm in Illinois
(6000 acres). A couple
of times now, he's been out in the field working on or near large
farming equipment when lightning struck. One time, he came to on the
other side of the equipment from where'd he been working!
Hawaii's pretty tame on lightning ...
Small farm....6000 acres of Illinois farmland... Boy *that* brought a
smile to my face. I'm now living in Champaign, Illinois, in the
heart of Illinois
farmland. Very little livestock, most farmers are grain farmers.
It's the 6000 acres that made me smile. Let's see, there's 640 acres to
a section, and a section of land is 1 mile by 1 mile, or a 1 mile
square. 6000 acres would be 9.375 square miles of some of the most
prime farmland in the entire United States. If all of his land was
contiguous, he'd own something like 3 miles by 3 miles, and then some.
Land around here can sell for 25,000 USD per acre. So he's got around
$150,000,000 in land value alone. I wouldn't call that a *small* farm,
and I'm wondering what he's doing working it by himself!
Maybe he sold it and took his $150M and that's why I haven't heard from
him for years. ;-)
Now when I spent some time in the cattle and sheep
areas of North
Dakota, 6000 acres would be just about right for a small ranch. Slope
county in North Dakota (western side, near the Montana border) was 40
miles by 30 miles roughly, around 1,200 square miles. There were 2
towns in the entire county, one of around 200 people and the other
around 125. If you saw a tree, it was probably planted at a ranch
house. You won't see many trees or people in Slope county. You can see
some buffalo, though.
I remember the lack of trees across the midwest when my family took a
vacation trip back in the 1970s. Strange to me who grew up in northern
California with little things like the Sierra Nevadas and the Redwoods
near to hand ...
Worked in Yellowstone National Park for two summers, got to see buffalo
and other critters. They were cool!
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
9:12 a.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
david wrote:
TheOther wrote:
Hello David,
I believe you when he said it was a "small" farm.
There's that wonderful British talent for understatement, that's very
much alive and well in the Midwest of the USA. Understatement is a
highly valued form of humour in the Midwest.
Best,
Stephen.
david wrote:
He described it as small. I understand by comparison to many other farms
in the area at the time, it was small.
That was many years ago - haven't had any contact with him since. I have a friend who owns a small farm in Illinois
(6000 acres). A couple
of times now, he's been out in the field working on or near large
farming equipment when lightning struck. One time, he came to on the
other side of the equipment from where'd he been working!
Hawaii's pretty tame on lightning ...
Small farm....6000 acres of Illinois
farmland... Boy *that* brought a
smile to my face.
23 Jun
23 Jun
4:15 a.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
nescivi wrote:
On Monday 22 June 2009 20:44:05 TheOther wrote:
Lightning rods. I think they not attracted and channeled lighting bolts,
they also helped leak charges from the athmosphere to the ground before
they became strong enough to generate a bolt.
Probably Wikipedia has a useful article on the subject.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
david wrote:
The opposite works though. Tesla was allegedly quite succesfull at attracting
strange weather conditions around his lab, with all his magnets.
But yeah, unplugging the laptop as the thunderstorm was closing in might have
helped.
Also, as far as I know, high buildings usually have thunder-antenna's (? not
sure of the English word; though I just read that Benjamin Franklin invented
them) which are supposed to catch lightning for you and bring it to ground, so
that lower (parts of the) buildings in the surroundings are not as likely to
get caught. Not much protects against lightning. Even
unplugging from the mains
might not - lightning is powerful enough to jump across insulator gaps.
Very true,
David. I don't know of *anything* that will stop lightning
directly. 
1:51 p.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
Slightly more music related, the English term is a lightning conductor ;-)
nescivi wrote:
Also, as far as I know, high buildings usually have thunder-antenna's (?
not
sure of the English word...
21 Jun
21 Jun
9:13 p.m.
New subject: thunderstorm
Dave, very sorry to hear that!
Are surge protectors insufficient to protect sensitive audio equipment? We
have started to use surge protectors to connect all our electronics to
outlets, and they seem to have helped immensely. they have something like
$75,000 equipment warranties but i don't want to take chances with replacing
or repairing my audio equipment (what a hassle!) if something does happen.
on the other hand, i don't care if my tv gets fried :)
ethan
Sorry Dave to hear about your trouble! Hope all is well otherwise...
In theory, surge protectors should help. However, if a lighting strikes
close enough to your home, the sheer strength of the spike usually fuses
surge protector's connections before it can actually do its thing. I had my
share of fried equipment using surge protectors, some of which were in my
opinion quite benign, and can attest that while they help, they are not
end-all solutions. I heard somewhere that UPS ought to be able to absorb
massive voltage spike but am yet to see that in action (on a second thought,
I would rather pass on that experience, particularly given consumer UPSs rep
as great home fire-starters).
As for the $75,000 insurance. Sure, you can try to claim that, but like most
such schemes, by the time you have jumped through all the hoops (usually
they require original receipts of items and then pro-rate the equipment
value based on their age, etc.) you may realize that the time you spent on
filing your claim will end-up being more valuable than the compensation
you'll get in return. Still, there is no doubt that having a surge protector
is a lot better than having nothing.
Best wishes,
Ico
5453
days inactive
5456
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
17 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Bob van der Poel -
david -
ethan a young -
Folderol -
Fons Adriaensen -
Ivica Ico Bukvic -
Jonathan Gazeley -
nescivi -
Q -
TheOther -
Tracey Hytry