On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 22:08:24 -0700, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> We used to keep the beer under the floor. When we were moving to a new
> building a forgotten six pack and a half finished pint of vodka were
> discovered under one of the tiles. Some fool forgot to
> inconspicuously mark the tile!
I presume you were that fool? :-p
--
Ted S.
fedya at hughes dot net
Now blogging at http://justacineast.blogspot.com
On Sep 19, 2:57=A0pm, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Dave Baker wrote:
>
> >> BTW it's certainly not for "stunning" the catch as your answer says. I=
t's
> >> for "killing" a fish as quickly and painlessly as possible. The last
> >> thing
> >> you want is for the poor creature to only be stunned and wake up later=
in
> >> the creel and suffocate slowly in air.
>
> > I usually put the "poor creatures" back in the water! =A0They like it t=
here.
> > : )
>
> > Bill
>
> If you are not going to eat them, why do you torment them?
For fun. Mine, not theirs.
--riverman
On Sep 20, 12:29=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/19/2010 2:57 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Dave Baker wrote:
>
> >>> BTW it's certainly not for "stunning" the catch as your answer says.
> >>> It's
> >>> for "killing" a fish as quickly and painlessly as possible. The last
> >>> thing
> >>> you want is for the poor creature to only be stunned and wake up
> >>> later in
> >>> the creel and suffocate slowly in air.
>
> >> I usually put the "poor creatures" back in the water! They like it
> >> there. : )
>
> >> Bill
>
> > If you are not going to eat them, why do you torment them?
>
> Don't assume it's torment for them--I recall one guy catching the same
> trout four times in the same day (he marked it somehow the first time--I
> forget how). =A0Perhaps its the way fish are programmed, or perhaps it's
> that fish have a different idea of "fun" from humans.
There is an ongoing debate between fishermen and others about the
'inhumanity' of fishing, based on the assumption that fish must feel
the pain of the hook, since they kick and fight so hard. Or at the
very least, that it's harmful or traumatic bringing them into the air
and supporting their bodies outside of the water.
The debate rages on. Many fishermen (myself included) have caught a
single fish repeatedly, and released it repeatedly, which seems to
suggest that the whole experience isn't traumatic enough to make them
change their behavior. I have heard of scientific studies that suggest
that fish lack a certain structure in their brains that would enable
them to feel pain.
In any case, whenever I see those National Geographic images of
grizzly bears catching salmon, dragging them onshore and ripping their
skin off while the fish kicks and twists, I figure it could be a whole
lot worse for the fish than to be pinched in the lip, quickly brought
to hand, held underwater lightly while the (barbless) hook is removed,
and then positioned gently so that the current flows over its gills
and it is revived enough to swim away.
--riverman (who doesn't use a priest, but raps them on the head with
his knuckles instead)
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:
> And the item in question may be brass or bronze (which has a
> similar appearance, but is harder). I would expect bronze to last
> longer.
------------------------------
Brass and salt water are totally incompatible.
Salt water leaches the zinc out of the brass, thus bronze is the
choice.
Copper is too soft.
Lew
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:
> Would such an item "a priest" be likely to be in full-time
> contact with salt water -- even if the fishing were being done in
> salt
> water, not fresh?
----------------------
As a sailor, I'm prejudiced.
Might find some brass in the shop, but never on the boat.
Sooner or later, it will bite you.
Lew
On Sep 17, 1:23=A0am, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
> >2037. Hammer for knock off sports car hubs or a fancy fish whacker.
>
> Your second answer is correct.
>
> Rob
Fancy fish whackers are called "priests"
--riverman
On Sep 16, 5:49=A0am, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just posted this week's set:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
> Rob
2040 might also be for lifting tiles in a raised-floor room- but same
diff.
Dave
On Sep 15, 11:49=A0pm, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just posted this week's set:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
> Rob
2037.=A0Hammer=A0for=A0knock=A0off=A0sports=A0car=A0hubs=A0or=A0a=A0fancy=
=A0fish=A0whacker.
2040.=A0Suction=A0cup=A0handles=A0to=A0carry=A0glass=A0or=A0mirrors.
Karl
2035 Tool for capturing escaped pizzas.
2036 Potato slicer and dicer, used by siamese twins
2037 Used for playing bongo drums.
2038 Too big to be a coat rack, but it's the right idea.
2039 Lemon press, used by English nobility
2040 Suction cup handles, used by glass guys (for real!)
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Just posted this week's set:
http://55tools.blogspot.com/
Rob
On Sep 16, 5:49=A0pm, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just posted this week's set:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
> Rob
2035 looks like something for working with tires, maybe with split
rims.
--riverman
"Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just posted this week's set:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
\
The first item is a lid crimper for 20 litre ( 5 gallon) drums
The last item is suction cup handler for sheet glass
The brass headed item with a wooden handle appears to be a motivational aid
for 1950's criminals
a
In article <[email protected]>,
DoN. Nichols <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2010-09-18, Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article
><6f4e8fcb-500e-448b-b23f-163cd0eb59be@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>> Dave__67 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Sep 16, 5:49 am, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Just posted this week's set:
>>>>
>>>> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>
>>>2040 might also be for lifting tiles in a raised-floor room- but same
>>>diff.
>>
>> The ones shown are 'too much trouble' to use to be the 'keys to the floor'
>> of a raised-floor (say, "computer") room. A typical floor-tile lifter
>> looks more like this:
>> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tile-lifter-in-use-raised-floor.jpg>
>
> Exactly like what I have.
>
>> The notable distinction being the 'squeeze handle' that applies suction
>> to the cups. It holds _only_ as long as you are squeezing the handle.
>
> Actually -- mine (I just went down and refreshed my memory)
>grips when just dropped or slapped onto the smooth surface, and
>*releases* when you squeeze the grip. The secondary handle opens valves
>into the two suction cups to let atmosphric pressure into the cups and
>remove the grip. Typical grip when using it is three fingers around the
>main handle, and one on the release handle for quick release.
sounds like a different animal than the ones I used at several places.
wouldn't surprise me if there was more than one design.
>> Note: the suction power is limited by the strenth of the persons grip,
>> *and* they "work" _only_ if applied to the _top_ of whatever it is that
>> you're trying to move.
>
> You *can't* improve the grip of mine by squeezing harder. You
>just release the vacuum with a minor squeeze, and if you squeeze hard
>enough, you can probably bend the strap which connects the two valves.
>
> And it works just fine to pull a vertical surface horizontally.
>
> *Lifting* one is somewhat a function of the orientation since
>the handle is so far above the cups. If the handle is parallel to the
>vertical dimension, the load will be greater on the bottom cup and the
>top cup will be pressed into the workpiece. If the handle is
>horizontal, then an attempt to lift using it will tilt both cups and
>break the vacuum. But it is fine for pulling something along the floor.
>(It can also be used for pulling out dents in automotive sheet metal --
>either both cups or just one applied.)
Actually, that sounds like a better design than the ones I used.
Also more expensive to manufacture. :)
>> The ones in 2040 have invidiual _locking_levers for each cup, and a much
>> -tighter- seal to the surface of 'whatever' they're attached to. You
>> put the 'handle' in place, flip the levers down, and the handle *stays*
>> attached, more-or-less indefinitely.
>
> What duration are you going to give for "more-or-less
>indefinitely"? There is always a leakage between the cup and the flat
>surface. At least the one which is in the puzzle is the kind which has
>the lever distort a sealed cup instead of operating a valve, so it has
>fewer leakage paths, but it still does have some, and I would not trust
>it for more than perhaps fifteen minutes at most. (It *might* last
>longer -- depending on the surface finish of the piece being gripped,
>and on how age hardened the rubber cups have gotten.
I've known ones of the lever-cap ilk, properly cared for, and with a
'lubricant' (i.e. soapy water) to facilitate the installation, to hold
for tens of _days_. With a rope tied to the handle, supporting a 50 lb-lb
plus load.
I've seen other suction-cup pads, like for holding soap on the wall by the
bathtub, or various kinds of wall-hooks, stay in place for *months*.
>> They also "work" _regardless_ of
>> te orientation of the object to which they are attached. Applications
>> include handling upright panes of glass ("mirrored" or transparent), wall-
>> mounted granite/marble/etc tile. They're _especially_ handy when the
>> item has to fit into a =recessed= opening, meaning you can't handle it by
>> the 'edges' -- e.g. fitting a mirrored back to a china cabinet.
>
> The reason that the puzzle one works better for this is because
>the handle is closer to the surface, so it applies much less tilting
>force to the cups.
>
>> 2040 _could_ be used for lifting raised-floor tiles, but they are much
>> _less_ convenient to use, and *much* more expensive than te tools that
>> are purpose-built for -that- job. One -might- use them for that, if you
>> _already_ had them on hand for anoter reason, but you'd never =buy= this
>> tool for a raised-floor tile-lifting task.
>
> I'll accept that, at least.
>
>> Also, floor-tile lifters are sold as single units, while _this_ kind of
>> handle is almost always purchased in _pairs_.
>
> That could be.
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.
>
>--
> Remove oil spill source from e-mail
> Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
> (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
> --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
"Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just posted this week's set:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
>
>
2040
A wild guess would be suction cup handles for carrying glass.
Steve R.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9/16/2010 2:16 PM, Rob H. wrote:
>>> 2036 - Looks like a brace for a wooden wagon tongue.
>>
>> This one is probably almost impossible to guess so I'll give a hint, it
>> was part of something used by loggers.
>
> 2036 -- Guess: If you nail the item into a log, it might help you stand on
> the log as you work all of your logs down the river (e.g. the Au Sable
> River, in MI)
>
Never seen any like that here, and my uncle had a logging company! Single
bladed boot jacks as we knew them, were used for climbing.
Steve R.
<Big snip>
Yes, it is much heavier than water, and if you dropped it, it sure
would sink, along with the $25 you spent on it. Most fishermen use it
on shore or in a boat when they land a big fish. Flyfishermen are
fairly well-known for spending exorbitant amounts of money on fancy
things that a cheaper thing would work just as well for. Like fancy
wading boots (instead of hiking boots or even sneakers), fancy fishing
shirts (instead of pretty much anything), fancy nippers (fingernail
trimmers work just as well), floatant (candle wax or ski wax is
amazingly good at this), priests (try a rock), expensive fishing
sunglasses (instead of the cheaper polarized ones at the checkout
rack), etc. And don't get me started on fly tying stuff....
--riverman
Oh the fishing bone's connected to the wallet bone....
My weighted plastic whacker is heavy enough to sink too. It is small enough
to stow in the kayak. I simply fasten it and the landing net to the boat
with a leash made from 3/16 shock cord. For years I used a pedal arm from an
old bicycle. It worked fine! For the record my "expensive" fly tying vice is
one I made in my workshop. Everything I needed for it was in the scrapbox,
which is an old wooden Japanese mandarin orange box. money spent on the
kayak and equipment is another matter, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
Steve R.
On Sep 16, 8:16=A0pm, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 2036 - Looks like a brace for a wooden wagon tongue.
>
> This one is probably almost impossible to guess so I'll give a hint, it w=
as
> part of something used by loggers.
>
> > 2038 - Could have been used for a variety of things, Tobacco hanging,
> > Hop drying. Have also seen something similar that was used to move loos=
e
> > hay. Where is the barn? Location may help with what they are.
>
> The barn was in the state of Maine.
>
> Rob
2036: A heel or toe iron for a logger's boot?
2037: Fish whacker.
2038: Rack for drying seaweed.
On Sep 18, 10:25=A0am, [email protected] (Robert Bonomi)
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]=
.com>,
>
> Dave__67 =A0<[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Sep 16, 5:49=A0am, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Just posted this week's set:
>
> >>http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
> >> Rob
>
> >2040 might also be for lifting tiles in a raised-floor room- but same
> >diff.
>
> The ones shown are 'too much trouble' to use to be the 'keys to the floor=
'
> of a raised-floor (say, "computer") room. =A0 A typical floor-tile lifter
> looks more like this:
> =A0 <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tile-lifter-in-use-raised-flo=
o...>
>
> The notable distinction being the 'squeeze handle' that applies suction
> to the cups. =A0It holds _only_ as long as you are squeezing the handle.
> Note: the suction power is limited by the strenth of the persons grip,
> *and* they "work" _only_ if applied to the _top_ of whatever it is that
> you're trying to move.
>
> The ones in 2040 have invidiual _locking_levers for each cup, and a much
> -tighter- seal to the surface of 'whatever' they're attached to. =A0You
> put the 'handle' in place, flip the levers down, and the handle *stays*
> attached, more-or-less indefinitely. =A0They also "work" _regardless_ of
> te orientation of the object to which they are attached. =A0Applications
> include handling upright panes of glass ("mirrored" or transparent), wall=
-
> mounted granite/marble/etc tile. =A0They're _especially_ handy when the
> item has to fit into a =3Drecessed=3D opening, meaning you can't handle i=
t by
> the 'edges' -- e.g. fitting a mirrored back to a china cabinet.
>
> 2040 _could_ be used for lifting raised-floor tiles, =A0but they are much
> _less_ convenient to use, and *much* more expensive than te tools that
> are purpose-built for -that- job. =A0One -might- use them for that, if yo=
u
> _already_ had them on hand for anoter reason, but you'd never =3Dbuy=3D t=
his
> tool for a raised-floor tile-lifting task.
>
> Also, floor-tile lifters are sold as single units, while _this_ kind of
> handle is almost always purchased in _pairs_.
Man, you use a lot of punctuation.
:-)
--riverman
On Sep 20, 6:13=A0pm, "Alexander Thesoso"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't fish, but, on the topic of this item, I have two comments, one
> technical and one nostalgic...
>
> From the link, it sure looks like this is a very nice 'priest' or
> fish-basher but...
> I'd expect a club used to kill fish to be lighter than water. =A0The meta=
l
> head would seem to make it heavier than water, so if you dropped it, it
> would sink and be lost. =A0It does have a wrist loop, but I find it hard =
to
> imagine a fisherman keeping in on his wrist at all times, or stopping to =
put
> the wrist loop on while landing a fish.
>
> A long time ago, when I was a kid, there was a local fish market. =A0It h=
ad a
> large tile-lined tank that held live merchandise. =A0The buyer could poin=
t at
> a fish and say "I'll take that one.". =A0 The merchant had a club used to=
kill
> the fish. =A0It was a simple round billet of wood, about 2.5 inches in
> diameter, with one end turned down to about 1.25 inch diameter to make a
> cylindrical handle. =A0He also used it to drive a cleaver to segment larg=
er
> fish.
>
> "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> >> BTW it's certainly not for "stunning" the catch as your answer says. I=
t's
> >> for "killing" a fish as quickly and painlessly as possible.
>
> > Thanks for the information, I just updated the answer page.
>
> >> Yours may even be a Hardy as it has the same turnings on the head as t=
his
> >> one.
>
> >>http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3D300453237652
>
> >> Do the engravings say anything?
>
> > I don't own the priest, if it's still at the shop next time I go, I'll
> > check the engravings.
>
> > Rob
Yes, it is much heavier than water, and if you dropped it, it sure
would sink, along with the $25 you spent on it. Most fishermen use it
on shore or in a boat when they land a big fish. Flyfishermen are
fairly well-known for spending exorbitant amounts of money on fancy
things that a cheaper thing would work just as well for. Like fancy
wading boots (instead of hiking boots or even sneakers), fancy fishing
shirts (instead of pretty much anything), fancy nippers (fingernail
trimmers work just as well), floatant (candle wax or ski wax is
amazingly good at this), priests (try a rock), expensive fishing
sunglasses (instead of the cheaper polarized ones at the checkout
rack), etc. And don't get me started on fly tying stuff....
--riverman
Oh the fishing bone's connected to the wallet bone....
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
>>
>>> And the item in question may be brass or bronze (which has a
>>> similar appearance, but is harder). I would expect bronze to last
>>> longer.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Brass and salt water are totally incompatible.
>>
>> Salt water leaches the zinc out of the brass, thus bronze is the choice.
>
> Who said anything about salt water?
Mostly salt water here, plus one river, a lot of creeks, and lakes. I only
do fresh water fly fishing now, and have a glow in the dark fish whacker
made of some heavy plastic. In the lakes, the fish feed at dawn and dusk, so
it can be very dark. On moonlit nights they can feed for most of the night.
Still have my old saltwater whacker, it looks like a small baseball bat,
just what is needed for a 50 pound salmon!
Steve R.
In article <[email protected]>,
DoN. Nichols <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2010-09-20, Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I've seen other suction-cup pads, like for holding soap on the wall by the
>> bathtub, or various kinds of wall-hooks, stay in place for *months*.
>
> And I've seen them give way in a matter of hours. :-)
True. as with any tool, it works better if you use it properly. :)
>
> And I've also seen a single lever-operated suction-cup stand
>(works by deforming the middle of the cup -- no valve holes at all)
>intended to hold dial indicators and other things for machinist purposes
>let go of rather smooth surfaces in less than an hour -- when another
>metalworking club member was demonstrating just how good it was. :-)
>
> Of course, you don't want to use soapy water on ground steel. :-)
True. Anything with a relatively low surface tension, to act as a 'void
filler' where the cup meets the mounting surface, will extend the grip
strength/duration _considerably_. As long as it isn't absorbed into the
materiel of either the cups or the surface, doesn't particularly matter
how 'volatile' it is -- the molecules 'doing the work' are in an essentially
'sealed' environment.
On Sep 16, 7:23=A0am, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
> >2037. Hammer for knock off sports car hubs or a fancy fish whacker.
>
> Your second answer is correct.
>
> Rob
While researching knock off hammers I found out they're made of copper
and that looks like brass.
Karl
Rob H. wrote:
> Just posted this week's set:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
>
>
2035 - Lid crimper for 5 gallon pails
2036 - Looks like a brace for a wooden wagon tongue.
2037 - Fancy version of a tire billy. Used to listen for a flat tire on
a dual equipped vehicle.
2038 - Could have been used for a variety of things, Tobacco hanging,
Hop drying. Have also seen something similar that was used to move loose
hay. Where is the barn? Location may help with what they are.
2039 -
2040 - Suction cup handles, common uses are to carry glass or large flat
smooth sheet goods, like steel or melamine panels.
--
Steve W.
> 2036 - Looks like a brace for a wooden wagon tongue.
This one is probably almost impossible to guess so I'll give a hint, it was
part of something used by loggers.
> 2038 - Could have been used for a variety of things, Tobacco hanging,
> Hop drying. Have also seen something similar that was used to move loose
> hay. Where is the barn? Location may help with what they are.
The barn was in the state of Maine.
Rob
On 9/16/2010 2:16 PM, Rob H. wrote:
>> 2036 - Looks like a brace for a wooden wagon tongue.
>
> This one is probably almost impossible to guess so I'll give a hint, it
> was part of something used by loggers.
2036 -- Guess: If you nail the item into a log, it might help you stand
on the log as you work all of your logs down the river (e.g. the Au
Sable River, in MI)
On 9/16/2010 2:16 PM, Rob H. wrote:
>> 2036 - Looks like a brace for a wooden wagon tongue.
>
> This one is probably almost impossible to guess so I'll give a hint, it
> was part of something used by loggers.
Hmmm.. 2036: If you nail them up as you climb a tree, you might be
able to use them to climb a tree.
On 9/16/10 5:49 AM, Rob H. wrote:
> Just posted this week's set:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
>
>
2035: It appears to be designed to pick up a disk about the size of an
LP record. The need for 16 claws suggests brittleness.
How about concrete septic-tank hatch covers? Normally they have metal
fittings for hooks, but I can see why local building codes might
prohibit that.
A neighbor once called into a radio show about heroes. She called my
brother a hero for pulling her son out of our septic tank years earlier.
That was the first I'd heard about it. Locally, septic tanks had
easily removed steel covers. A kid could fall in.
If you really want to protect kids, you might require that these covers
be buried concrete with no place to hook. Thus tool 2035.
On 9/16/10 2:16 PM, Rob H. wrote:
>
>> 2038 - Could have been used for a variety of things, Tobacco hanging,
>> Hop drying. Have also seen something similar that was used to move loose
>> hay. Where is the barn? Location may help with what they are.
>
> The barn was in the state of Maine.
>
They could be a removable stile. If you have a gate, everybody has to
close it properly every time. That can be a nuisance. Forgetting can
be a worse nuisance.
A stile can make entry quick and foolproof, but what if you need access
with a wheelbarrow? Use a removable stile! If stock is in a pasture
for a few brief periods each year, why leave your stile out in the
weather all year? Bring it into the barn!
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9/16/2010 2:16 PM, Rob H. wrote:
>>> 2036 - Looks like a brace for a wooden wagon tongue.
>>
>> This one is probably almost impossible to guess so I'll give a hint, it
>> was part of something used by loggers.
>
> Hmmm.. 2036: If you nail them up as you climb a tree, you might be able
> to use them to climb a tree.
This isn't correct but is closer than your other guess.
Rob
Rich Grise wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:16:26 -0400, Rob H. wrote:
>
>>> 2036 - Looks like a brace for a wooden wagon tongue.
>> This one is probably almost impossible to guess so I'll give a hint, it was
>> part of something used by loggers.
>>
>>> 2038 - Could have been used for a variety of things, Tobacco hanging,
>>> Hop drying. Have also seen something similar that was used to move loose
>>> hay. Where is the barn? Location may help with what they are.
>> The barn was in the state of Maine.
>>
> Were there horses? It could be simply a tack rack, pardon the inadvertent
> poetry. ;-)
...
Pretty much what it appears to be to me...
--
>>> 2038 - Could have been used for a variety of things, Tobacco hanging,
>>> Hop drying. Have also seen something similar that was used to move loose
>>> hay. Where is the barn? Location may help with what they are.
>>
>> The barn was in the state of Maine.
>>
> Were there horses? It could be simply a tack rack, pardon the inadvertent
> poetry. ;-)
>
> Cheers!
> Rich
If I had to make a guess, I would agree that it's for hanging harnesses,
reins, etc., although I also like the drying rack idea.
Rob
On 9/16/10 4:26 PM, Rob H. wrote:
>>>> 2038 - Could have been used for a variety of things, Tobacco hanging,
>>>> Hop drying. Have also seen something similar that was used to move
>>>> loose
>>>> hay. Where is the barn? Location may help with what they are.
>>>
>>> The barn was in the state of Maine.
>>>
>> Were there horses? It could be simply a tack rack, pardon the inadvertent
>> poetry. ;-)
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Rich
>
>
> If I had to make a guess, I would agree that it's for hanging harnesses,
> reins, etc., although I also like the drying rack idea.
>
>
> Rob
The timbers appear to be bigger than milled 4x4s. Why such heavy
construction to hang reins? The pins would stick out about 14" from the
wall. Why such long pins for reins? The tack racks I've seen use hooks
or pins with heads so you don't knock reins off by accident.
The pins are not quite parallel and appear to be tree limbs rather than
dowels. Would a tack rack be so primitive?
Why would timbers for a tack rack have mortises?
Suppose you have a farm without much cash flow. If you have a 15"
opening in a fence, you can go through sideways. To make a stile, you
take a couple of 30" boards about the size of 2x4s and cut tenons to
match the mortices in 2038. You nail those boards to one of the fence
posts and brace them with wire to keep them perpendicular to the fence
line.
Now, installing the stiles is a matter of slipping the timbers onto the
tenons and tying the timbers together with a loop of baling twine.
Sheep and goats could not twist their way between the two rows of pins
on one side and the post on the other side. The distance between the
posts could be wider than 15", possibly wide enough for a wheelbarrow.
For wheelbarrow access, the stile timbers could quickly be untied and
removed.
>> If I had to make a guess, I would agree that it's for hanging harnesses,
>> reins, etc., although I also like the drying rack idea.
>>
>>
>> Rob
>
> The timbers appear to be bigger than milled 4x4s. Why such heavy
> construction to hang reins? The pins would stick out about 14" from the
> wall. Why such long pins for reins? The tack racks I've seen use hooks
> or pins with heads so you don't knock reins off by accident.
>
> The pins are not quite parallel and appear to be tree limbs rather than
> dowels. Would a tack rack be so primitive?
>
> Why would timbers for a tack rack have mortises?
>
> Suppose you have a farm without much cash flow. If you have a 15" opening
> in a fence, you can go through sideways. To make a stile, you take a
> couple of 30" boards about the size of 2x4s and cut tenons to match the
> mortices in 2038. You nail those boards to one of the fence posts and
> brace them with wire to keep them perpendicular to the fence line.
>
> Now, installing the stiles is a matter of slipping the timbers onto the
> tenons and tying the timbers together with a loop of baling twine. Sheep
> and goats could not twist their way between the two rows of pins on one
> side and the post on the other side. The distance between the posts could
> be wider than 15", possibly wide enough for a wheelbarrow. For wheelbarrow
> access, the stile timbers could quickly be untied and removed.
I'll add stiles to my list of possibilities for these items, although I'll
be surprised if we ever get an answer since it's likely that someone made
them for their own purposes and they weren't mass produced.
Rob
On 9/16/10 9:37 PM, dpb wrote:
> Rob H. wrote:
> ...
>
>> I'll add stiles to my list of possibilities for these items, although
>> I'll be surprised if we ever get an answer since it's likely that
>> someone made them for their own purposes and they weren't mass produced.
> ...
>
> I think that one is a real stretch, meself...
>
> --
"Wicket" would have been a better term than "stile". Page 115 of "Farm
Roads, Fences, and Gates" by John Scott (1883) explains the principle.
"Wickets and stiles are contrivances... in order to allow men to pass
over or through fences, while the passage excludes sheep, horses, or
cattle. A wicket or turnabout is simply a zigzag or bow passage in the
fence, and for temporary use may be formed of stakes and hurdles or
posts and rails..."
Stiles are often means of climbing over a fence, while the root word for
wicket means "turn." The principle is that four-legged livestock can't
go through a zigzag opening as well as a man.
2038 looks to me like one of those temporary wickets, used when
livestock was in a pasture. The weight of a cow could break it, but if
a cow tried to squeeze through a zigzag opening, having those pegs poke
it in the side would cause discomfort. The cow would back out rather
than throw its weight against the wicket. Isn't that what keeps cows
from pushing through barbed wire?
J Burns wrote:
> On 9/16/10 9:37 PM, dpb wrote:
>> Rob H. wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> I'll add stiles to my list of possibilities for these items, although
>>> I'll be surprised if we ever get an answer since it's likely that
>>> someone made them for their own purposes and they weren't mass produced.
>> ...
>>
>> I think that one is a real stretch, meself...
>>
>> --
>
> "Wicket" would have been a better term than "stile". Page 115 of "Farm
> Roads, Fences, and Gates" by John Scott (1883) explains the principle.
...
Having been born/reared and back on the farm/ranch, I'm well acquainted
w/ the principle.
I just don't think the item in 2038 is likely an embodiment thereof...
--
dpb wrote:
> J Burns wrote:
>> On 9/16/10 9:37 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> Rob H. wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> I'll add stiles to my list of possibilities for these items, although
>>>> I'll be surprised if we ever get an answer since it's likely that
>>>> someone made them for their own purposes and they weren't mass
>>>> produced.
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I think that one is a real stretch, meself...
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> "Wicket" would have been a better term than "stile". Page 115 of
>> "Farm Roads, Fences, and Gates" by John Scott (1883) explains the
>> principle.
> ...
>
> Having been born/reared and back on the farm/ranch, I'm well acquainted
> w/ the principle.
>
> I just don't think the item in 2038 is likely an embodiment thereof...
Another reason I think that isn't their use is that they appear to be in
far too good a condition to have been used outside in such a fashion --
those were in the barn their lifetime unless they're almost newly made
or have been refurbished.
--
>> >2037. Hammer for knock off sports car hubs or a fancy fish whacker.
>>
>> Your second answer is correct.
>>
>> Rob
>
> While researching knock off hammers I found out they're made of copper
> and that looks like brass.
> Karl
>
> 8888888*********************8888888888
>
> Don't think he was talking about the knock-off hammer when he said it was
> correct
> I think he was referring to the plate glass suction lifter handles.
Guess I wasn't very clear there, I meant his second answer for 2037 was
correct, fancy fish wacker, though it's actually called a 'priest' as
mentioned by riverman.
Still not sure about the racks but the rest of the answers can be seen here:
http://55tools.blogspot.com/2010/09/set-354.html#answers
Rob
On 9/17/10 3:14 PM, dpb wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> J Burns wrote:
>>> On 9/16/10 9:37 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>> Rob H. wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> I'll add stiles to my list of possibilities for these items, although
>>>>> I'll be surprised if we ever get an answer since it's likely that
>>>>> someone made them for their own purposes and they weren't mass
>>>>> produced.
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I think that one is a real stretch, meself...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> "Wicket" would have been a better term than "stile". Page 115 of
>>> "Farm Roads, Fences, and Gates" by John Scott (1883) explains the
>>> principle.
>> ...
>>
>> Having been born/reared and back on the farm/ranch, I'm well
>> acquainted w/ the principle.
>>
>> I just don't think the item in 2038 is likely an embodiment thereof...
>
> Another reason I think that isn't their use is that they appear to be in
> far too good a condition to have been used outside in such a fashion --
> those were in the barn their lifetime unless they're almost newly made
> or have been refurbished.
>
> --
Posts and rails may look good after more than a year, but you're right,
2038 looks great. I see four factors.
1. Smooth surface. Planing might not be worthwhile for a fence post
but would pay off for temporary fencing that would be carried several
times a year.
2. Surface protection. It wouldn't make sense for a post that would
rot at ground level, anyway; but this item would go on rails above the
ground.
3. Temporary use. If cattle can't roam and you want them well fed, you
keep moving them to where your grass is greenest. A temporary wicket
makes sense only where there will be frequent pedestrian traffic across
a normally empty pasture. A pasture between the house and the water
supply could be an example. If the livestock are on that pasture only
four one-week periods a year, that's not much weathering. Otherwise,
the wicket is untied, slid off the tenons, and put in the barn.
4. It may never have been used. I used to cut and split fence posts
before the need arose. If 2038 was assembled in anticipation of
replacing an old wicket, it may not have been needed. Perhaps a water
pipe was laid across the pasture. Perhaps a self-closing gate was
installed. Perhaps the lot was used for crops instead of livestock.
J Burns wrote:
> On 9/17/10 3:14 PM, dpb wrote:
...
>>> I just don't think the item in 2038 is likely an embodiment thereof...
>>
>> Another reason I think that isn't their use is that they appear to be in
>> far too good a condition to have been used outside in such a fashion --
>> those were in the barn their lifetime unless they're almost newly made
>> or have been refurbished.
...
> Posts and rails may look good after more than a year, but you're right,
> 2038 looks great. I see four factors.
>
...
5. More likely, that wasn't their purpose... :)
--
"Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>> If I had to make a guess, I would agree that it's for hanging harnesses,
>>> reins, etc., although I also like the drying rack idea.
>>>
>>>
>>> Rob
>>
>> The timbers appear to be bigger than milled 4x4s. Why such heavy
>> construction to hang reins? The pins would stick out about 14" from the
>> wall. Why such long pins for reins? The tack racks I've seen use hooks
>> or pins with heads so you don't knock reins off by accident.
>>
>> The pins are not quite parallel and appear to be tree limbs rather than
>> dowels. Would a tack rack be so primitive?
>>
>> Why would timbers for a tack rack have mortises?
>>
>> Suppose you have a farm without much cash flow. If you have a 15"
>> opening in a fence, you can go through sideways. To make a stile, you
>> take a couple of 30" boards about the size of 2x4s and cut tenons to
>> match the mortices in 2038. You nail those boards to one of the fence
>> posts and brace them with wire to keep them perpendicular to the fence
>> line.
>>
>> Now, installing the stiles is a matter of slipping the timbers onto the
>> tenons and tying the timbers together with a loop of baling twine. Sheep
>> and goats could not twist their way between the two rows of pins on one
>> side and the post on the other side. The distance between the posts
>> could be wider than 15", possibly wide enough for a wheelbarrow. For
>> wheelbarrow access, the stile timbers could quickly be untied and
>> removed.
>
>
> I'll add stiles to my list of possibilities for these items, although I'll
> be surprised if we ever get an answer since it's likely that someone made
> them for their own purposes and they weren't mass produced.
>
>
> Rob
Uprooting potatoes when pulled by horses.
On 9/17/10 6:10 PM, dpb wrote:
> J Burns wrote:
>> On 9/17/10 3:14 PM, dpb wrote:
> ...
>
>>>> I just don't think the item in 2038 is likely an embodiment thereof...
>>>
>>> Another reason I think that isn't their use is that they appear to be in
>>> far too good a condition to have been used outside in such a fashion --
>>> those were in the barn their lifetime unless they're almost newly made
>>> or have been refurbished.
> ...
>
>> Posts and rails may look good after more than a year, but you're
>> right, 2038 looks great. I see four factors.
>>
> ...
>
> 5. More likely, that wasn't their purpose... :)
>
> --
I'd like to consider other likely uses for something as stout as a fence
post with lots of long pegs that aren't quite parallel or cut to the
same length.
Power lawn mowers became common after WWII. Before that, goats could
give you a nice lawn. Several times a year, the farmer's wife might
call for the goats to trim the lawn and eat the weeds. Perhaps they
would not need to be fenced if the lead nanny was tethered.
Her vegetable garden must be fenced. Every day she sends her children
to weed, water, and pick; so she can't count on a gate. Each time she
sends for the goats, she gets the wickets from the barn and fastens them
in place. She insists that they be finished like furniture, to prevent
splinters and make her yard look civilized.
Those pieces may have been used several times a year until the family
bought a power lawn mower.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
>
>> And the item in question may be brass or bronze (which has a
>> similar appearance, but is harder). I would expect bronze to last
>> longer.
>
> ------------------------------
> Brass and salt water are totally incompatible.
>
> Salt water leaches the zinc out of the brass, thus bronze is the choice.
Who said anything about salt water?
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <6f4e8fcb-500e-448b-b23f-163cd0eb59be@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Dave__67 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sep 16, 5:49 am, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Just posted this week's set:
>>>
>>> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> Rob
>>
>>2040 might also be for lifting tiles in a raised-floor room- but same
>>diff.
>
> The ones shown are 'too much trouble' to use to be the 'keys to the floor'
> of a raised-floor (say, "computer") room. A typical floor-tile lifter
> looks more like this:
>
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tile-lifter-in-use-raised-floor.jpg>
We used to keep the beer under the floor. When we were moving to a new
building a forgotten six pack and a half finished pint of vodka were
discovered under one of the tiles. Some fool forgot to inconspicuously mark
the tile!
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
>
>> Would such an item "a priest" be likely to be in full-time
>> contact with salt water -- even if the fishing were being done in salt
>> water, not fresh?
> ----------------------
> As a sailor, I'm prejudiced.
>
> Might find some brass in the shop, but never on the boat.
>
> Sooner or later, it will bite you.
>
Then you smack the fish on your forehead.
"Ted Schuerzinger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 22:08:24 -0700, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> We used to keep the beer under the floor. When we were moving to a new
>> building a forgotten six pack and a half finished pint of vodka were
>> discovered under one of the tiles. Some fool forgot to
>> inconspicuously mark the tile!
>
> I presume you were that fool? :-p
Closely related ...
"Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>> >2037. Hammer for knock off sports car hubs or a fancy fish whacker.
>>>
>>> Your second answer is correct.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>
>> While researching knock off hammers I found out they're made of copper
>> and that looks like brass.
>> Karl
>>
>> 8888888*********************8888888888
>>
>> Don't think he was talking about the knock-off hammer when he said it was
>> correct
>> I think he was referring to the plate glass suction lifter handles.
>
>
> Guess I wasn't very clear there, I meant his second answer for 2037 was
> correct, fancy fish wacker, though it's actually called a 'priest' as
> mentioned by riverman.
It's specifically a brass trout or salmon priest. Trout ones are usually
about 8" long and salmon ones 10" and heavier obviously for the larger fish.
Yours at 9" is in between. My own has an aluminium end which isn't the ideal
material being fairly light unless you use lots of it but my grandad bought
it for me 40 years ago and it's done the job perfectly well so far. For sea
fish you'd want something at least a foot long and much more robust or
you'll just annoy them when you hit them on the head with it.
BTW it's certainly not for "stunning" the catch as your answer says. It's
for "killing" a fish as quickly and painlessly as possible. The last thing
you want is for the poor creature to only be stunned and wake up later in
the creel and suffocate slowly in air.
Yours may even be a Hardy as it has the same turnings on the head as this
one.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300453237652
Do the engravings say anything?
--
Dave Baker
Dave Baker wrote:
> BTW it's certainly not for "stunning" the catch as your answer says. It's
> for "killing" a fish as quickly and painlessly as possible. The last thing
> you want is for the poor creature to only be stunned and wake up later in
> the creel and suffocate slowly in air.
I usually put the "poor creatures" back in the water! They like it
there. : )
Bill
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave Baker wrote:
>
>> BTW it's certainly not for "stunning" the catch as your answer says. It's
>> for "killing" a fish as quickly and painlessly as possible. The last
>> thing
>> you want is for the poor creature to only be stunned and wake up later in
>> the creel and suffocate slowly in air.
>
> I usually put the "poor creatures" back in the water! They like it there.
> : )
>
> Bill
If you are not going to eat them, why do you torment them?
On 9/19/2010 2:57 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Dave Baker wrote:
>>
>>> BTW it's certainly not for "stunning" the catch as your answer says.
>>> It's
>>> for "killing" a fish as quickly and painlessly as possible. The last
>>> thing
>>> you want is for the poor creature to only be stunned and wake up
>>> later in
>>> the creel and suffocate slowly in air.
>>
>> I usually put the "poor creatures" back in the water! They like it
>> there. : )
>>
>> Bill
>
>
> If you are not going to eat them, why do you torment them?
Don't assume it's torment for them--I recall one guy catching the same
trout four times in the same day (he marked it somehow the first time--I
forget how). Perhaps its the way fish are programmed, or perhaps it's
that fish have a different idea of "fun" from humans.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9/19/2010 2:57 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Dave Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW it's certainly not for "stunning" the catch as your answer says.
>>>> It's
>>>> for "killing" a fish as quickly and painlessly as possible. The last
>>>> thing
>>>> you want is for the poor creature to only be stunned and wake up
>>>> later in
>>>> the creel and suffocate slowly in air.
>>>
>>> I usually put the "poor creatures" back in the water! They like it
>>> there. : )
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>>
>> If you are not going to eat them, why do you torment them?
>
> Don't assume it's torment for them--I recall one guy catching the same
> trout four times in the same day (he marked it somehow the first time--I
> forget how). Perhaps its the way fish are programmed, or perhaps it's
> that fish have a different idea of "fun" from humans.
>
Guy probably clipped a fin. Trout might just have been real hungry and/or
the fisherman did an excellent job of matching the hatch.
Never could get into catching more than I was going eat or give to friends.
Quit completely when when my balance went and standing upright in a river
was near impossible, never mind playing a fish.
"--riverman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:46b616fe-ecda-416a-b7a5-0c0eccd19f77@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 19, 2:57 pm, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Dave Baker wrote:
>
> >> BTW it's certainly not for "stunning" the catch as your answer says.
> >> It's
> >> for "killing" a fish as quickly and painlessly as possible. The last
> >> thing
> >> you want is for the poor creature to only be stunned and wake up later
> >> in
> >> the creel and suffocate slowly in air.
>
> > I usually put the "poor creatures" back in the water! They like it
> > there.
> > : )
>
> > Bill
>
> If you are not going to eat them, why do you torment them?
For fun. Mine, not theirs.
--riverman
'torment' was a bad word choice. I assume that's not the intent.
> BTW it's certainly not for "stunning" the catch as your answer says. It's
> for "killing" a fish as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Thanks for the information, I just updated the answer page.
> Yours may even be a Hardy as it has the same turnings on the head as this
> one.
>
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300453237652
>
> Do the engravings say anything?
I don't own the priest, if it's still at the shop next time I go, I'll check
the engravings.
Rob
On 9/19/2010 8:56 PM, --riverman wrote:
> On Sep 20, 12:29 am, "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 9/19/2010 2:57 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Dave Baker wrote:
>>
>>>>> BTW it's certainly not for "stunning" the catch as your answer says.
>>>>> It's
>>>>> for "killing" a fish as quickly and painlessly as possible. The last
>>>>> thing
>>>>> you want is for the poor creature to only be stunned and wake up
>>>>> later in
>>>>> the creel and suffocate slowly in air.
>>
>>>> I usually put the "poor creatures" back in the water! They like it
>>>> there. : )
>>
>>>> Bill
>>
>>> If you are not going to eat them, why do you torment them?
>>
>> Don't assume it's torment for them--I recall one guy catching the same
>> trout four times in the same day (he marked it somehow the first time--I
>> forget how). Perhaps its the way fish are programmed, or perhaps it's
>> that fish have a different idea of "fun" from humans.
>
> There is an ongoing debate between fishermen and others about the
> 'inhumanity' of fishing, based on the assumption that fish must feel
> the pain of the hook, since they kick and fight so hard. Or at the
> very least, that it's harmful or traumatic bringing them into the air
> and supporting their bodies outside of the water.
Then there's the question of whether pain is in and of itself "bad",
which any opponent of corporal punishment will tell you is necessarily
so and which any masochist will tell you is far from the case.
> The debate rages on. Many fishermen (myself included) have caught a
> single fish repeatedly, and released it repeatedly, which seems to
> suggest that the whole experience isn't traumatic enough to make them
> change their behavior. I have heard of scientific studies that suggest
> that fish lack a certain structure in their brains that would enable
> them to feel pain.
I met a fellow a while back who kept snakeheads (before the ban) in a
tank with an electric catfish. Every time he put a new snakehead in the
tank, the first thing it would do is take a bite out of the catfish.
The catfish would let drive, and all the snakeheads would then float
upside down for a bit and the one that took the bite would not ever bite
the electric catfish again.
Clearly the catfish could sense being bitten and take sufficient
exception to the bite to blast the tank, and equally clearly the
snakehead could associate biting the catfish with being electrocuted.
One can argue the matter of "pain" with regard to the
electrocution--many if not most fish directly sense electric currents so
the sensation they experience from electricity might be quite different
from what we know as "pain", but it is more difficult to argue that the
bite would be sensed as something else.
Now this does not mean that the area that the hook normally penetrates
is particularly rich with pain sensors nor does it mean that the fish
doesn't decide that getting hooked is an e-ticket ride well worth the
price of a little bit of pain.
> In any case, whenever I see those National Geographic images of
> grizzly bears catching salmon, dragging them onshore and ripping their
> skin off while the fish kicks and twists, I figure it could be a whole
> lot worse for the fish than to be pinched in the lip, quickly brought
> to hand, held underwater lightly while the (barbless) hook is removed,
> and then positioned gently so that the current flows over its gills
> and it is revived enough to swim away.
Yep. There are far worse things that can happen to a fish than getting
caught and released.
I don't fish, but, on the topic of this item, I have two comments, one
technical and one nostalgic...
From the link, it sure looks like this is a very nice 'priest' or
fish-basher but...
I'd expect a club used to kill fish to be lighter than water. The metal
head would seem to make it heavier than water, so if you dropped it, it
would sink and be lost. It does have a wrist loop, but I find it hard to
imagine a fisherman keeping in on his wrist at all times, or stopping to put
the wrist loop on while landing a fish.
A long time ago, when I was a kid, there was a local fish market. It had a
large tile-lined tank that held live merchandise. The buyer could point at
a fish and say "I'll take that one.". The merchant had a club used to kill
the fish. It was a simple round billet of wood, about 2.5 inches in
diameter, with one end turned down to about 1.25 inch diameter to make a
cylindrical handle. He also used it to drive a cleaver to segment larger
fish.
"Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> BTW it's certainly not for "stunning" the catch as your answer says. It's
>> for "killing" a fish as quickly and painlessly as possible.
>
> Thanks for the information, I just updated the answer page.
>
>> Yours may even be a Hardy as it has the same turnings on the head as this
>> one.
>>
>> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300453237652
>>
>> Do the engravings say anything?
>
>
> I don't own the priest, if it's still at the shop next time I go, I'll
> check the engravings.
>
>
> Rob
On 9/20/2010 6:13 AM, Alexander Thesoso wrote:
> I don't fish, but, on the topic of this item, I have two comments, one
> technical and one nostalgic...
>
> From the link, it sure looks like this is a very nice 'priest' or
> fish-basher but...
> I'd expect a club used to kill fish to be lighter than water. The metal
> head would seem to make it heavier than water, so if you dropped it, it
> would sink and be lost. It does have a wrist loop, but I find it hard to
> imagine a fisherman keeping in on his wrist at all times, or stopping to put
> the wrist loop on while landing a fish.
1500 bucks worth of rod and reel doesn't float and fishermen are willing
to take their chances with it, so I don't see why they'd worry about a
simple club.
<snip>
Steve R. wrote:
> <Big snip>
>
> Yes, it is much heavier than water, and if you dropped it, it sure
> would sink, along with the $25 you spent on it. Most fishermen use it
> on shore or in a boat when they land a big fish. Flyfishermen are
> fairly well-known for spending exorbitant amounts of money on fancy
> things that a cheaper thing would work just as well for. Like fancy
> wading boots (instead of hiking boots or even sneakers), fancy fishing
> shirts (instead of pretty much anything), fancy nippers (fingernail
> trimmers work just as well), floatant (candle wax or ski wax is
> amazingly good at this), priests (try a rock), expensive fishing
> sunglasses (instead of the cheaper polarized ones at the checkout
> rack), etc. And don't get me started on fly tying stuff....
>
> --riverman
> Oh the fishing bone's connected to the wallet bone....
>
>
> My weighted plastic whacker is heavy enough to sink too. It is small enough
> to stow in the kayak. I simply fasten it and the landing net to the boat
> with a leash made from 3/16 shock cord. For years I used a pedal arm from an
> old bicycle. It worked fine! For the record my "expensive" fly tying vice is
> one I made in my workshop. Everything I needed for it was in the scrapbox,
> which is an old wooden Japanese mandarin orange box. money spent on the
> kayak and equipment is another matter, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
>
>
>
> Steve R.
>
>
Sounds all to familiar... The wife and I were looking at new rod/reels
last night. Need to get ready for the new season you know....
One place we were at took exception to me opening the reel up to look at
the drive train. Guess who won't be getting any of my money!
--
Steve W.
Steve R. wrote:
> <Big snip>
>
> Yes, it is much heavier than water, and if you dropped it, it sure
> would sink, along with the $25 you spent on it. Most fishermen use it
> on shore or in a boat when they land a big fish.
I think most flyfishermen (meaning me) would rather see things sink than
see them float down the river. Just depends... Of course a string
resolves the problem either way. Some people put their car keys on a
string. Of course, it helps if the other end of the string is tied to
something too! : )
Bill
Flyfishermen are
> fairly well-known for spending exorbitant amounts of money on fancy
> things that a cheaper thing would work just as well for. Like fancy
> wading boots (instead of hiking boots or even sneakers), fancy fishing
> shirts (instead of pretty much anything), fancy nippers (fingernail
> trimmers work just as well), floatant (candle wax or ski wax is
> amazingly good at this), priests (try a rock), expensive fishing
> sunglasses (instead of the cheaper polarized ones at the checkout
> rack), etc. And don't get me started on fly tying stuff....
>
> --riverman
> Oh the fishing bone's connected to the wallet bone....
>
>
> My weighted plastic whacker is heavy enough to sink too. It is small enough
> to stow in the kayak. I simply fasten it and the landing net to the boat
> with a leash made from 3/16 shock cord. For years I used a pedal arm from an
> old bicycle. It worked fine! For the record my "expensive" fly tying vice is
> one I made in my workshop. Everything I needed for it was in the scrapbox,
> which is an old wooden Japanese mandarin orange box. money spent on the
> kayak and equipment is another matter, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
>
>
>
> Steve R.
>
>
Steve W. wrote:
> Steve R. wrote:
>> <Big snip>
>>
>> Yes, it is much heavier than water, and if you dropped it, it sure
>> would sink, along with the $25 you spent on it. Most fishermen use it
>> on shore or in a boat when they land a big fish. Flyfishermen are
>> fairly well-known for spending exorbitant amounts of money on fancy
>> things that a cheaper thing would work just as well for. Like fancy
>> wading boots (instead of hiking boots or even sneakers), fancy fishing
>> shirts (instead of pretty much anything), fancy nippers (fingernail
>> trimmers work just as well), floatant (candle wax or ski wax is
>> amazingly good at this), priests (try a rock), expensive fishing
>> sunglasses (instead of the cheaper polarized ones at the checkout
>> rack), etc. And don't get me started on fly tying stuff....
>>
>> --riverman
>> Oh the fishing bone's connected to the wallet bone....
>>
>>
>> My weighted plastic whacker is heavy enough to sink too. It is small enough
>> to stow in the kayak. I simply fasten it and the landing net to the boat
>> with a leash made from 3/16 shock cord. For years I used a pedal arm from an
>> old bicycle. It worked fine! For the record my "expensive" fly tying vice is
>> one I made in my workshop. Everything I needed for it was in the scrapbox,
>> which is an old wooden Japanese mandarin orange box. money spent on the
>> kayak and equipment is another matter, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve R.
>>
>>
>
> Sounds all to familiar... The wife and I were looking at new rod/reels
> last night. Need to get ready for the new season you know....
>
> One place we were at took exception to me opening the reel up to look at
> the drive train. Guess who won't be getting any of my money!
Must have been some place like K-mart or Walmart?
>
Bill wrote:
> Steve W. wrote:
>> Steve R. wrote:
>>> <Big snip>
>>>
>>> Yes, it is much heavier than water, and if you dropped it, it sure
>>> would sink, along with the $25 you spent on it. Most fishermen use it
>>> on shore or in a boat when they land a big fish. Flyfishermen are
>>> fairly well-known for spending exorbitant amounts of money on fancy
>>> things that a cheaper thing would work just as well for. Like fancy
>>> wading boots (instead of hiking boots or even sneakers), fancy fishing
>>> shirts (instead of pretty much anything), fancy nippers (fingernail
>>> trimmers work just as well), floatant (candle wax or ski wax is
>>> amazingly good at this), priests (try a rock), expensive fishing
>>> sunglasses (instead of the cheaper polarized ones at the checkout
>>> rack), etc. And don't get me started on fly tying stuff....
>>>
>>> --riverman
>>> Oh the fishing bone's connected to the wallet bone....
>>>
>>>
>>> My weighted plastic whacker is heavy enough to sink too. It is small
>>> enough
>>> to stow in the kayak. I simply fasten it and the landing net to the boat
>>> with a leash made from 3/16 shock cord. For years I used a pedal arm
>>> from an
>>> old bicycle. It worked fine! For the record my "expensive" fly tying
>>> vice is
>>> one I made in my workshop. Everything I needed for it was in the
>>> scrapbox,
>>> which is an old wooden Japanese mandarin orange box. money spent on the
>>> kayak and equipment is another matter, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Steve R.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sounds all to familiar... The wife and I were looking at new rod/reels
>> last night. Need to get ready for the new season you know....
>>
>> One place we were at took exception to me opening the reel up to look at
>> the drive train. Guess who won't be getting any of my money!
>
> Must have been some place like K-mart or Walmart?
>
>
>>
>
Dicks Sporting Goods. Looking at a couple of options. I am used to
spinning reels but have been debating about a bait caster.
The reel in question was a Shimano Stradic 2500. Looks like a nice reel
but I wanted to see what it was made of inside. Told the sales droid
that it has a maintainance port for easy access but that didn't seem to
matter.
--
Steve W.
(\___/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Steve W. wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Steve W. wrote:
>>> Steve R. wrote:
>>>> <Big snip>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is much heavier than water, and if you dropped it, it sure
>>>> would sink, along with the $25 you spent on it. Most fishermen use it
>>>> on shore or in a boat when they land a big fish. Flyfishermen are
>>>> fairly well-known for spending exorbitant amounts of money on fancy
>>>> things that a cheaper thing would work just as well for. Like fancy
>>>> wading boots (instead of hiking boots or even sneakers), fancy fishing
>>>> shirts (instead of pretty much anything), fancy nippers (fingernail
>>>> trimmers work just as well), floatant (candle wax or ski wax is
>>>> amazingly good at this), priests (try a rock), expensive fishing
>>>> sunglasses (instead of the cheaper polarized ones at the checkout
>>>> rack), etc. And don't get me started on fly tying stuff....
>>>>
>>>> --riverman
>>>> Oh the fishing bone's connected to the wallet bone....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My weighted plastic whacker is heavy enough to sink too. It is small
>>>> enough
>>>> to stow in the kayak. I simply fasten it and the landing net to the boat
>>>> with a leash made from 3/16 shock cord. For years I used a pedal arm
>>>> from an
>>>> old bicycle. It worked fine! For the record my "expensive" fly tying
>>>> vice is
>>>> one I made in my workshop. Everything I needed for it was in the
>>>> scrapbox,
>>>> which is an old wooden Japanese mandarin orange box. money spent on the
>>>> kayak and equipment is another matter, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Steve R.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds all to familiar... The wife and I were looking at new rod/reels
>>> last night. Need to get ready for the new season you know....
>>>
>>> One place we were at took exception to me opening the reel up to look at
>>> the drive train. Guess who won't be getting any of my money!
>>
>> Must have been some place like K-mart or Walmart?
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>
> Dicks Sporting Goods. Looking at a couple of options. I am used to
> spinning reels but have been debating about a bait caster.
I once worked in a large sporting goods store: fishing, hunting, and
camping dept, before there were sporting goods stores as big as Dick's.
As you probably know, most spinning reels have easily removable spools
so that you can change line in an instant if you have more than 1 spool.
As you may also know, most people who seem to know seem to prefer a
good bait caster reel over a spinning reel. I like fly-casting because
it keeps me entertained, but I doubt you'd regret getting a bait caster.
My recollection from 30 years ago is that Shimano reels seemed to have
*exceptionally* smooth gears. From your report, it sounds like they
still do. Have fun! ><==c='>
Bill
> The reel in question was a Shimano Stradic 2500. Looks like a nice reel
> but I wanted to see what it was made of inside. Told the sales droid
> that it has a maintainance port for easy access but that didn't seem to
> matter.
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
"Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just posted this week's set:
>
> <http://55tools.blogspot.com/>
>
2035 - Tool for removing and installing clock crystals. There is a
similar but far smaller tool for watch crystals.
2037 - Tool for knocking sense into the overly hardheaded.
2040 - Tool for picking up sheets of glass and the floor tiles in a
raised floor computer room. When one squeezes the handle, a vacuum is
pulled in the two rubber cups.
Joe Gwinn
In article <6f4e8fcb-500e-448b-b23f-163cd0eb59be@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Dave__67 <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sep 16, 5:49 am, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Just posted this week's set:
>>
>> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Rob
>
>2040 might also be for lifting tiles in a raised-floor room- but same
>diff.
The ones shown are 'too much trouble' to use to be the 'keys to the floor'
of a raised-floor (say, "computer") room. A typical floor-tile lifter
looks more like this:
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tile-lifter-in-use-raised-floor.jpg>
The notable distinction being the 'squeeze handle' that applies suction
to the cups. It holds _only_ as long as you are squeezing the handle.
Note: the suction power is limited by the strenth of the persons grip,
*and* they "work" _only_ if applied to the _top_ of whatever it is that
you're trying to move.
The ones in 2040 have invidiual _locking_levers for each cup, and a much
-tighter- seal to the surface of 'whatever' they're attached to. You
put the 'handle' in place, flip the levers down, and the handle *stays*
attached, more-or-less indefinitely. They also "work" _regardless_ of
te orientation of the object to which they are attached. Applications
include handling upright panes of glass ("mirrored" or transparent), wall-
mounted granite/marble/etc tile. They're _especially_ handy when the
item has to fit into a =recessed= opening, meaning you can't handle it by
the 'edges' -- e.g. fitting a mirrored back to a china cabinet.
2040 _could_ be used for lifting raised-floor tiles, but they are much
_less_ convenient to use, and *much* more expensive than te tools that
are purpose-built for -that- job. One -might- use them for that, if you
_already_ had them on hand for anoter reason, but you'd never =buy= this
tool for a raised-floor tile-lifting task.
Also, floor-tile lifters are sold as single units, while _this_ kind of
handle is almost always purchased in _pairs_.
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:16:26 -0400, Rob H. wrote:
>> 2036 - Looks like a brace for a wooden wagon tongue.
>
> This one is probably almost impossible to guess so I'll give a hint, it was
> part of something used by loggers.
>
>> 2038 - Could have been used for a variety of things, Tobacco hanging,
>> Hop drying. Have also seen something similar that was used to move loose
>> hay. Where is the barn? Location may help with what they are.
>
> The barn was in the state of Maine.
>
Were there horses? It could be simply a tack rack, pardon the inadvertent
poetry. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
>
>> Would such an item "a priest" be likely to be in full-time
>> contact with salt water -- even if the fishing were being done in salt
>> water, not fresh?
> ----------------------
> As a sailor, I'm prejudiced.
>
> Might find some brass in the shop, but never on the boat.
>
> Sooner or later, it will bite you.
>
> Lew
>
>
Naval Brass tends to fare a bit better, due to a lower Zinc content.
Steve R.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fee1cd7c-4137-4b36-8f9b-0d75d7662f15@k17g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 16, 7:23 am, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
> >2037. Hammer for knock off sports car hubs or a fancy fish whacker.
>
> Your second answer is correct.
>
> Rob
While researching knock off hammers I found out they're made of copper
and that looks like brass.
Karl
8888888*********************8888888888
Don't think he was talking about the knock-off hammer when he said it was
correct
I think he was referring to the plate glass suction lifter handles.
Any knock-off hammers I have used in the past have been made from rawhide
still got one in one of my sheds
On 9/16/2010 7:19 PM, Rob H. wrote:
> Just posted this week's set:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
>
>
2040 suction handles for lifting sheet glass
suction is operated by flipping the levers down or up.
--
Kevin (Bluey)
"I'm not young enough to know everything."
[email protected]
On 2010-09-16, Rob H. <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just posted this week's set:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
Posting from rec.crafts.metalworking as always:
2035) Looks like a tool for cutting and lifting a ball of dirt to
make a hole for planting a tree.
Or perhaps for gaining access to a shutoff valve covered by a
neatly manicured lawn?
2036) Reenforcing for wood subject to loads and weather -- perhaps
where a fork in the structure occurs?
2037) Could this be the tool for stunning cattle prior to
slaughtering? It looks to heavy to use on a human unless
concussion or death was the intention.
2038) Looks as though they bolt to vertical beams, and provide
storage for long-handled tools like rakes and such -- both
of them are used to support the tools at both ends.
The bolt holes in the sides suggest that it bolts to the side of
the vertical beams, instead of on the face of them.
2039) If it were not so large, I would think that it is for scooping
butter to make decorative shells. A bit too large for that, and
not the right shape for making ice cream scoops.
2040) Vacuum cup lifters for use on either glass or tiles in a raised
computer room floor. (The one I have has a single central
handle for releasing the vacuum from both cups at once.
Now to see what others have suggested.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
On 2010-09-16, Joseph Gwinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Just posted this week's set:
>>
>> <http://55tools.blogspot.com/>
>>
>
> 2035 - Tool for removing and installing clock crystals. There is a
> similar but far smaller tool for watch crystals.
Way too big for clock crystals -- and normally they are not used
that way in clocks anyway -- they are captive in a bezel ring from an
insert.
After posting my suggestion and reading some other suggestions,
I've decided that the lid crimper for drums (containers, not the
noisemakers) sound the most reasonable.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
On 2010-09-17, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 7:23 am, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>>
>> >2037. Hammer for knock off sports car hubs or a fancy fish whacker.
>>
>> Your second answer is correct.
>>
>> Rob
>
> While researching knock off hammers I found out they're made of copper
> and that looks like brass.
Copper or lead -- so they don't mar the surface of the spinner.
And the item in question may be brass or bronze (which has a
similar appearance, but is harder). I would expect bronze to last
longer.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
On 2010-09-17, Rob H. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> >2037. Hammer for knock off sports car hubs or a fancy fish whacker.
>>>
>>> Your second answer is correct.
[ ... ]
> Still not sure about the racks but the rest of the answers can be seen here:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/2010/09/set-354.html#answers
Since logging was mentioned in relation to theses, could they be
for storing the large two-man logging saws?
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
On 2010-09-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
>
>> And the item in question may be brass or bronze (which has a
>> similar appearance, but is harder). I would expect bronze to last
>> longer.
>
> ------------------------------
> Brass and salt water are totally incompatible.
Would such an item "a priest" be likely to be in full-time
contact with salt water -- even if the fishing were being done in salt
water, not fresh?
> Salt water leaches the zinc out of the brass, thus bronze is the
> choice.
For something in full time contact with salt water -- especially
underwater fittings on a boat, yes. Something which occasionally gets
splashed (as this would be if it is indeed a fisherman's "priest") is
not going to have enough exposure to make this a problem.
And I believe that I was replying to a suggestion which was that
its use was for removing, installing hub spinners for wire wheel
equipped sports cars. (You trimmed too aggressively to make it easy for
me to verify this.) For that -- either brass or bronze would be too
hard, and likely to mar the spinners. Copper or lead would be the
choices there.
> Copper is too soft.
For what? Given the relative hardness of a fish's head, I think
not. For removing a hub spinner on an automobile -- softer is better,
since the tool is replaceable at low cost, while the spinner is a rather
expensive part.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
On 2010-09-18, Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <6f4e8fcb-500e-448b-b23f-163cd0eb59be@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Dave__67 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sep 16, 5:49 am, "Rob H." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Just posted this week's set:
>>>
>>> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> Rob
>>
>>2040 might also be for lifting tiles in a raised-floor room- but same
>>diff.
>
> The ones shown are 'too much trouble' to use to be the 'keys to the floor'
> of a raised-floor (say, "computer") room. A typical floor-tile lifter
> looks more like this:
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tile-lifter-in-use-raised-floor.jpg>
Exactly like what I have.
> The notable distinction being the 'squeeze handle' that applies suction
> to the cups. It holds _only_ as long as you are squeezing the handle.
Actually -- mine (I just went down and refreshed my memory)
grips when just dropped or slapped onto the smooth surface, and
*releases* when you squeeze the grip. The secondary handle opens valves
into the two suction cups to let atmosphric pressure into the cups and
remove the grip. Typical grip when using it is three fingers around the
main handle, and one on the release handle for quick release.
> Note: the suction power is limited by the strenth of the persons grip,
> *and* they "work" _only_ if applied to the _top_ of whatever it is that
> you're trying to move.
You *can't* improve the grip of mine by squeezing harder. You
just release the vacuum with a minor squeeze, and if you squeeze hard
enough, you can probably bend the strap which connects the two valves.
And it works just fine to pull a vertical surface horizontally.
*Lifting* one is somewhat a function of the orientation since
the handle is so far above the cups. If the handle is parallel to the
vertical dimension, the load will be greater on the bottom cup and the
top cup will be pressed into the workpiece. If the handle is
horizontal, then an attempt to lift using it will tilt both cups and
break the vacuum. But it is fine for pulling something along the floor.
(It can also be used for pulling out dents in automotive sheet metal --
either both cups or just one applied.)
> The ones in 2040 have invidiual _locking_levers for each cup, and a much
> -tighter- seal to the surface of 'whatever' they're attached to. You
> put the 'handle' in place, flip the levers down, and the handle *stays*
> attached, more-or-less indefinitely.
What duration are you going to give for "more-or-less
indefinitely"? There is always a leakage between the cup and the flat
surface. At least the one which is in the puzzle is the kind which has
the lever distort a sealed cup instead of operating a valve, so it has
fewer leakage paths, but it still does have some, and I would not trust
it for more than perhaps fifteen minutes at most. (It *might* last
longer -- depending on the surface finish of the piece being gripped,
and on how age hardened the rubber cups have gotten.
> They also "work" _regardless_ of
> te orientation of the object to which they are attached. Applications
> include handling upright panes of glass ("mirrored" or transparent), wall-
> mounted granite/marble/etc tile. They're _especially_ handy when the
> item has to fit into a =recessed= opening, meaning you can't handle it by
> the 'edges' -- e.g. fitting a mirrored back to a china cabinet.
The reason that the puzzle one works better for this is because
the handle is closer to the surface, so it applies much less tilting
force to the cups.
> 2040 _could_ be used for lifting raised-floor tiles, but they are much
> _less_ convenient to use, and *much* more expensive than te tools that
> are purpose-built for -that- job. One -might- use them for that, if you
> _already_ had them on hand for anoter reason, but you'd never =buy= this
> tool for a raised-floor tile-lifting task.
I'll accept that, at least.
> Also, floor-tile lifters are sold as single units, while _this_ kind of
> handle is almost always purchased in _pairs_.
That could be.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
On 2010-09-20, Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DoN. Nichols <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 2010-09-18, Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> The ones shown are 'too much trouble' to use to be the 'keys to the floor'
>>> of a raised-floor (say, "computer") room. A typical floor-tile lifter
>>> looks more like this:
>>> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tile-lifter-in-use-raised-floor.jpg>
>>
>> Exactly like what I have.
>>
>>> The notable distinction being the 'squeeze handle' that applies suction
>>> to the cups. It holds _only_ as long as you are squeezing the handle.
>>
>> Actually -- mine (I just went down and refreshed my memory)
>>grips when just dropped or slapped onto the smooth surface, and
>>*releases* when you squeeze the grip. The secondary handle opens valves
>>into the two suction cups to let atmospheric pressure into the cups and
>>remove the grip. Typical grip when using it is three fingers around the
>>main handle, and one on the release handle for quick release.
>
> sounds like a different animal than the ones I used at several places.
>
> wouldn't surprise me if there was more than one design.
That is certainly likely.
Of course, there are also the ones which have two pads full of
claws intended to grip carpet-surfaced tiles. :-)
[ ... ]
>> And it works just fine to pull a vertical surface horizontally.
>>
>> *Lifting* one is somewhat a function of the orientation since
>>the handle is so far above the cups. If the handle is parallel to the
>>vertical dimension, the load will be greater on the bottom cup and the
>>top cup will be pressed into the workpiece. If the handle is
>>horizontal, then an attempt to lift using it will tilt both cups and
>>break the vacuum. But it is fine for pulling something along the floor.
>>(It can also be used for pulling out dents in automotive sheet metal --
>>either both cups or just one applied.)
>
> Actually, that sounds like a better design than the ones I used.
>
> Also more expensive to manufacture. :)
Probably so.
>>> The ones in 2040 have invidiual _locking_levers for each cup, and a much
>>> -tighter- seal to the surface of 'whatever' they're attached to. You
>>> put the 'handle' in place, flip the levers down, and the handle *stays*
>>> attached, more-or-less indefinitely.
>>
>> What duration are you going to give for "more-or-less
>>indefinitely"? There is always a leakage between the cup and the flat
>>surface. At least the one which is in the puzzle is the kind which has
>>the lever distort a sealed cup instead of operating a valve, so it has
>>fewer leakage paths, but it still does have some, and I would not trust
>>it for more than perhaps fifteen minutes at most. (It *might* last
>>longer -- depending on the surface finish of the piece being gripped,
>>and on how age hardened the rubber cups have gotten.
>
> I've known ones of the lever-cap ilk, properly cared for, and with a
> 'lubricant' (i.e. soapy water) to facilitate the installation, to hold
> for tens of _days_. With a rope tied to the handle, supporting a 50 lb-lb
> plus load.
O.K.
> I've seen other suction-cup pads, like for holding soap on the wall by the
> bathtub, or various kinds of wall-hooks, stay in place for *months*.
And I've seen them give way in a matter of hours. :-)
And I've also seen a single lever-operated suction-cup stand
(works by deforming the middle of the cup -- no valve holes at all)
intended to hold dial indicators and other things for machinist purposes
let go of rather smooth surfaces in less than an hour -- when another
metalworking club member was demonstrating just how good it was. :-)
Of course, you don't want to use soapy water on ground steel. :-)
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Rob H. wrote the following:
> Just posted this week's set:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
>
>
2039 looks light a "traffic light finder" A type of prism lens.
It was stuck on a dashboard or windshield with a suction cup mount
(missing?) to see a traffic light that was hidden by the roof above the
windshield when waiting at a light.
You didn't have to lean forward in the seat to peek up at the traffic light.
I had a similar one back in the 50s.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:57:10 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>
>> I'm cheap, I just wait until the guy behind me honks.
>-----------------------------
>There are a few places I've been in my time where that would
>definitely not be considered swift, much less safe.
>
>Lew
>
There are many places in the USA where the Colt works a lot better
than the Klaxon - and is used more!
willshak wrote:
> Jerry - OHIO wrote the following:
>> We're the only ones that know what is. Mine is on my 53 Merc.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>
> I had a 53 Mercury Monterey, 2D, 2 Tone Green. I don't remember if it
> was on that car or one of the other 50's FMC cars I owned
They were also similar option for GM vehicles -- the '48 truck had a
factory-option one, the '39 a aftermarket version.
LMC Truck has them in recent catalogs; I presume JC Whitney probably
still has 'em, too, altho I've not looked...
<http://www.lmctruck.com/icatalog/ca/full.aspx?Page=32>
--
"Jerry - OHIO" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The reason for them is if you had one of those visors on your roof it
> was hard to see the light. I put one on my PT Cruiser.
>
> Jerry
I'm cheap, I just wait until the guy behind me honks.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>
>> I'm cheap, I just wait until the guy behind me honks.
> -----------------------------
> There are a few places I've been in my time where that would definitely
> not be considered swift, much less safe.
>
> Lew
>
>
Well, New Jersey does come to mind ...
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:57:10 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Lobby Dosser" wrote:
>>
>>> I'm cheap, I just wait until the guy behind me honks.
>>-----------------------------
>>There are a few places I've been in my time where that would
>>definitely not be considered swift, much less safe.
>>
>>Lew
>>
> There are many places in the USA where the Colt works a lot better
> than the Klaxon - and is used more!
But they tend not to have traffic lights.
Jerry - OHIO wrote the following:
> We're the only ones that know what is. Mine is on my 53 Merc.
>
> Jerry
>
I had a 53 Mercury Monterey, 2D, 2 Tone Green. I don't remember if it
was on that car or one of the other 50's FMC cars I owned
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @