On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:34:14 -0500, Keith Nuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 11/5/2013 4:54 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 11/5/2013 2:53 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>> On 11/5/2013 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>>>> Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I
>>>>>>> don't recall ever hearing that in school.
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>> I don't recall that either. That's where the value of what we are
>>>>> taught comes in. How do we think our way through something like
>>>>> volumetric measurements, search a bit for some conversions, etc.
>>>>> It's the
>>>>> difference between have learned how to think one's way
>>>>> through something versus simply throwing a question out to the
>>>>> vastness of the world wide web, because it's
>>>> This is the reason we should go metric. With metric measurements
>>>> these types of calculation are greatly simplified.
>>>
>>> That wouldn't matter though Keith. Those who don't try to think their
>>> way
>>> through a problem won't do so any quicker with the metric system.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think working the imperial system helps to keep our minds sharp. The
>> more metric the less thinking and reasoning and the more mediocre we
>> become. Thank you Jimmy Carter for trying to shove it down our throats.
>
>
>I spent my total career working in Chemistry lab and used the metric
>system daily. It shines when you are doing volume, weight, and
>concentration type of calculations.
That's fine for professionals who do this daily. For everyone else,
there is nothing to gain and a whole lot of pain to change.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:35:17 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 11/12/2013 4:45 PM, Larry W wrote:
>
>> Not meaning to take anything away from the Buckmark, but the Ruger
>> Mark 3 is a fine shooting .22 pistol and in my experience readily
>> available. I believe the cost, depending on exact model (and there are
>> lots of variations to choose from), is competitive with the
>> Buckmark. Personally, I don't consider the changes made from the
>> Mark 2 to the Mark 3 to be improvements, except for the mag release button
>> being moved to the side of the grip instead of the heel catch used on
>> Mark 1 & 2, but it is still a great value.
>
>I agree about the Ruger, damned fine firearm. Being the hardcore 1911
>fan I am, if/when I buy another .22 pistol (have basically gifted my
>daughter the Buck Mark Challenge SE), it will be in a 1911 platform,
>something similar to this:
>
>http://www.ruger.com/products/sr1911/models.html
>
>or this:
>
>http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?fid=028B&cid=051&tid=802
>
>Sig also has one that is a bit cheaper and easier to find than the Browning:
>
>http://www.gandermountain.com/modperl/product/details.cgi?i=GM447593
>
>Damn, drooling just thinking about it. ;)
This is my next gun purchase (any month now).
http://www.kimberamerica.com/1911/gold-match-ii/stainless-gold-match-ii
It's either that or the Laguna.
> I think working the imperial system helps to keep our minds sharp. The
> more metric the less thinking and reasoning and the more mediocre we
> become. Thank you Jimmy Carter for trying to shove it down our throats.
"The metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet."
-- Dave Barry
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 12:14:15 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 11/5/2013 11:51 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons of our water
>>> pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17 inches across. There's
>>> nothing on it telling me how many gallons.
>>>
>>> Tanks.
>>
>> Really? You post this to a woodworker's newsgroup? And you have not tried
>> to find anything in the infinite resources of google to answer a question
>> that you should have been able to figure out with basic junior high school
>> math? You should be embarassed to ask this particular question...
>>
>
>Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I don't
>recall ever hearing that in school.
I learned how to derive such things in school. A cubic foot is 1728
(12x12x12) cubic inches. Eight gallons per cu. ft. Volume of a
cylinder is Pi x R^2 x H. Work from there.
...or look on the Internet for a calculator for the volume of a
cylinder.
<http://www.online-calculators.co.uk/volumetric/cylindervolume.php>
"Leon" wrote:
> I think working the imperial system helps to keep our minds sharp.
> The more metric the less thinking and reasoning and the more
> mediocre we become. Thank you Jimmy Carter for trying to shove it
> down our throats.
-------------------------------------------------
Quick now, how many furlongs per fortnight?
Inquiring minds .................................
Lew
>> Assuming a flat top and bottom and a round cylinder the volume
>> would be
>>
>> 45.809 gallons, whether filled with water or air.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"SonomaProducts.com" wrote:
> Uhh a gallon of air? At what pressure? Kinda doesn't make sense to
> me because we are talking a volume when speaking in gallons and air
> is compressible. Ambient pressure? At what altitude?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't make any difference.
A physical gallon is a physical gallon.
If it contains water, air, moose crap, whatever, it's still a gallon.
Lew
On 11/10/2013 10:32 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 11/10/2013 11:12 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:53:04 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/10/2013 10:49 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you
>>>> count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet."
>>>
>>> So popular that since the election of 2008, it has only recently become
>>> possible to find 9mm ammo, with any degree of availability, on the
>>> shelf, from Academy to most gun stores and shooting ranges.
>>
>> I can find them at gun shows but not at local stores. .22LRs are even
>> more rare. I did see a brick (550) at a gun show for $70! I remember
>> paying under $10, not too long ago. OTOH, .45ACPs have been
>> available, even at WallyWorld, pretty much continuously.
>
> I do a good bit of pistol shooting lately and use these "ammo bots" to
> find and buy when I really need something. Although you have to factor
> in shipping, and therefore buying as much as they allow, you might find
> them helpful:
>
> http://www.gunbot.net/ammo/rimfire/22lr/
>
> http://www.wikiarms.com/
>
> I've been known to place an order for .22lr at 3AM, because anything 'in
> stock' doesn't last long at that caliber.
>
> 9mm has made a big comeback on the shelves around these parts lately,
> and .45ACP and .38 special have not been that hard to find, although
> sometimes pricey.
>
> My shooting range of choice has a Sr night on Mondays where the range is
> free (normally $15) with the purchase of a box of ammo. I generally
> alternate between .45 and .38 on those nights and have managed to build
> up my inventory in all calibers to a comfortable level where I can
> afford to be choosy.
>
> My youngest daughter getting an interest in pistol shooting lately with
> a .22lr, has caused me to try and keep that in stock.
>
>
A year or two ago, I picked up a Heritage Roughrider 22 revolver with a
second cylinder for magnum ammo. Since then, it's almost impossible to
find .22lr or magnum ammo. I just bought a Marlin 60 and the deal was
you could buy a tub of 1400 .22lr rounds if you bought the rifle. This
was at C.A.L. Ranch and the tub of ammo was $65.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 11/10/2013 01:39 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 11/10/2013 2:07 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> On 11/10/2013 10:32 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2013 11:12 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:53:04 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/10/2013 10:49 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "The metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you
>>>>>> count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet."
>>>>>
>>>>> So popular that since the election of 2008, it has only recently
>>>>> become
>>>>> possible to find 9mm ammo, with any degree of availability, on the
>>>>> shelf, from Academy to most gun stores and shooting ranges.
>>>>
>>>> I can find them at gun shows but not at local stores. .22LRs are even
>>>> more rare. I did see a brick (550) at a gun show for $70! I remember
>>>> paying under $10, not too long ago. OTOH, .45ACPs have been
>>>> available, even at WallyWorld, pretty much continuously.
>>>
>>> I do a good bit of pistol shooting lately and use these "ammo bots" to
>>> find and buy when I really need something. Although you have to factor
>>> in shipping, and therefore buying as much as they allow, you might find
>>> them helpful:
>>>
>>> http://www.gunbot.net/ammo/rimfire/22lr/
>>>
>>> http://www.wikiarms.com/
>>>
>>> I've been known to place an order for .22lr at 3AM, because anything 'in
>>> stock' doesn't last long at that caliber.
>>>
>>> 9mm has made a big comeback on the shelves around these parts lately,
>>> and .45ACP and .38 special have not been that hard to find, although
>>> sometimes pricey.
>>>
>>> My shooting range of choice has a Sr night on Mondays where the range is
>>> free (normally $15) with the purchase of a box of ammo. I generally
>>> alternate between .45 and .38 on those nights and have managed to build
>>> up my inventory in all calibers to a comfortable level where I can
>>> afford to be choosy.
>>>
>>> My youngest daughter getting an interest in pistol shooting lately with
>>> a .22lr, has caused me to try and keep that in stock.
>>>
>>>
>> A year or two ago, I picked up a Heritage Roughrider 22 revolver with a
>> second cylinder for magnum ammo. Since then, it's almost impossible to
>> find .22lr or magnum ammo. I just bought a Marlin 60 and the deal was
>> you could buy a tub of 1400 .22lr rounds if you bought the rifle. This
>> was at C.A.L. Ranch and the tub of ammo was $65.
>
> I just "backordered" a bucket of 1400rd for .04/round plus shipping from
> midwayusa.com.
>
> The order is supposed to be filled by 12/31, must most folks I know who
> have ordered this item in the past week say they have already received
> confirmation of their order being filled early:
>
> http://www.slickguns.com/product/backorder-remington-ammunition-22-long-rifle-36-grain-plated-lead-hollow-point-bucket-1400-5
>
>
> At price, even the $15 shipping works to 05/rd, which is cheap these
> days. Good thing is my daughter's SA pistol eats this particular round
> with no problems.
>
> I have ordered 325/rd bricks of .22lr in the past from Midway, and
> included some gun parts in the order to get the cost per round down, and
> was happy with their online experience, so far.
>
> FWIW ...
>
Yup, that's the same Remington bucket. I didn't have shipping, but did
have tax in the local store. The good thing about your link is I don't
have to buy another gun to get the deal :-)
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 11/11/2013 10:34 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 11/11/2013 7:18 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Good for her. ...and you. I have a couple of 22s. A Buckmark (a lot
>> of fun to shoot)
>
> My youngest daughter loves to shoot this thing:
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/brrQQPF7bUZXvWfxMRpo6E5RAU6IiXnoyxKcxZGfUCs?feat=directlink
>
>
> I wish I could find another one, as I don't think I'll ever get it away
> from her:
Don't give up on it, Karl. I just stumbled into ownership of a minty
(can't have more than a box through it, if that) Browning Challenger
III. My only worry was finding an extra magazine or two for it. As
luck would have it, I scored the gun for $180 out the door and after a
half hour of searching on Ebay found not one, but two, minty magazines
for the III for $55 delivered. The others I'd found were going for
better than $90 EACH and there weren't that many out there.
Sweet shooting little bugger with the heavy barrel.
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 4:18:48 PM UTC-6, willshak wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
> > On 11/5/2013 11:51 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> >> Michael wrote:
>
> >>> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons of our water
>
> >>> pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17 inches across. There's
>
> >>> nothing on it telling me how many gallons.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Tanks.
>
> >>
>
> >> Really? You post this to a woodworker's newsgroup? And you have not
>
> >> tried
>
> >> to find anything in the infinite resources of google to answer a question
>
> >> that you should have been able to figure out with basic junior high
>
> >> school
>
> >> math? You should be embarassed to ask this particular question...
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Mike, Assuming the the OP feels suitably embarrassed, is he still
>
> > encouraged to ask, or not? : )
>
>
>
> Is the OP posting from gmail? I have gmail filtered and only see responses.
>
> Anyway, I have a Well-X-Trol Model WX-200 deep well expansion tank.
>
> Its dimensions are app. 15 3/8 wide by 31 5/8 tall.
>
> It is marked as 20 gals. I would suspect the OPs is about 25 to 30 gals.
>
> Those of you with better volume math can make corrections.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bill
>
> In Hamptonburgh, NY
>
> In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
>
> To email, remove the double zeros after @
Thanks, Bill. Yes, this is a gmail account. I couldn't figure a way to know the fraction of the tank that is taken up by the bladder. I figured someone here might have some experience with these things.
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 11:06:43 AM UTC-6, dadiOH wrote:
> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
> > Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons
>
> > of our water pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17
>
> > inches across. There's nothing on it telling me how many
>
> > gallons.
>
>
>
> ((8.5*8.5) * 3.14) * 44 = 9982 (and change) cubic inches.
>
>
>
> There are 1728 cubic inches in a cubic foot so your tank is 5.78 cubic feet,
>
> +-
>
>
>
> Figure 8 gallons in a cubic boot so that is 46.24 gallons. Or it would be
>
> if the entire thing had water which it probably doesn't; most likely, there
>
> is a rubber bladder and air space to provide pressure. So how much water is
>
> in it? No idea but the tank manual might tell you.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> dadiOH
>
> ____________________________
>
>
>
> Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
>
> Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
>
> Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
Yes, it uses a bladder so it's not a simple calculation. I wish I had a manual. It's been in a damp basement and looks like it's been in a war.
This topic wandered a bit . I hope the guy got his tank problem solved. I h=
ave a deep well and shallow. The deep was drilled and put in service in 198=
2. It is also 325' with a jet pump that has been there since day one. Still=
sending up some granite bits with the water after all these years...only h=
ad to replace the pressure switch contacts after I could no longer file the=
m clean. Knock on wood. Keeping with the two topics...my favorite pistol is=
the Colt Targetsman I purchased 38 years back. Being a lefty I had to over=
come the grips distinctly built for rh shooters ( thumb wrap on the left h=
and side) but it is a blast to fire and cheap too. Since I only post twice=
a year, I'll offer a salute to all veterans and a hearty thank you for you=
r service.
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 11:24:45 AM UTC-6, Markem wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:06:43 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]
>
> >> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons
>
> >> of our water pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17
>
> >> inches across. There's nothing on it telling me how many
>
> >> gallons.
>
> >
>
> >((8.5*8.5) * 3.14) * 44 = 9982 (and change) cubic inches.
>
> >
>
> >There are 1728 cubic inches in a cubic foot so your tank is 5.78 cubic feet,
>
> >+-
>
> >
>
> >Figure 8 gallons in a cubic boot so that is 46.24 gallons. Or it would be
>
> >if the entire thing had water which it probably doesn't; most likely, there
>
> >is a rubber bladder and air space to provide pressure. So how much water is
>
> >in it? No idea but the tank manual might tell you.
>
>
>
> I wonder at the size of it whether it might be a 40 gallon water
>
> heater not a pressure tank. But then if it is a pressure tank it would
>
> hold about 20 gallons, given that half of a pressure tank is a gas
>
> bladder.
>
>
>
> Mark
Thanks, Mark. I'm going to say 32. All I need is an estimate to buy a tank comparable in size.
Much appreciated.
On 11/5/2013 5:57 PM, SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>> Assuming a flat top and bottom and a round cylinder the volume would be
>>
>> 45.809 gallons, whether filled with water or air.
>
> Uhh a gallon of air? At what pressure? Kinda doesn't make sense to me because we are talking a volume when speaking in gallons and air is compressible. Ambient pressure? At what altitude?
>
At no pressure other than the ambient pressure.
On 11/5/2013 4:38 PM, John G wrote:
> Leon formulated the question :
>> On 11/5/2013 2:53 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>> On 11/5/2013 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>>>> Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I
>>>>>>> don't recall ever hearing that in school.
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>> I don't recall that either. That's where the value of what we are
>>>>> taught comes in. How do we think our way through something like
>>>>> volumetric measurements, search a bit for some conversions, etc.
>>>>> It's the
>>>>> difference between have learned how to think one's way
>>>>> through something versus simply throwing a question out to the
>>>>> vastness of the world wide web, because it's
>>>> This is the reason we should go metric. With metric measurements
>>>> these types of calculation are greatly simplified.
>>>
>>> That wouldn't matter though Keith. Those who don't try to think
>>> their way
>>> through a problem won't do so any quicker with the metric system.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think working the imperial system helps to keep our minds sharp.
>> The more metric the less thinking and reasoning and the more mediocre
>> we become. Thank you Jimmy Carter for trying to shove it down our
>> throats.
>
> This is not an IMPERIAL problem. A US gallon is smaller than an IMPERIAL
> gallon. :/
>
You are absolutely right! ???
On 11/5/2013 4:20 PM, willshak wrote:
> willshak wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On 11/5/2013 11:51 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons of our water
>>>>> pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17 inches across. There's
>>>>> nothing on it telling me how many gallons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tanks.
>>>>
>>>> Really? You post this to a woodworker's newsgroup? And you have
>>>> not tried
>>>> to find anything in the infinite resources of google to answer a
>>>> question
>>>> that you should have been able to figure out with basic junior high
>>>> school
>>>> math? You should be embarassed to ask this particular question...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Mike, Assuming the the OP feels suitably embarrassed, is he still
>>> encouraged to ask, or not? : )
>>
>> Is the OP posting from gmail? I have gmail filtered and only see
>> responses.
>> Anyway, I have a Well-X-Trol Model WX-200 deep well expansion tank.
>> Its dimensions are app. 15 3/8 wide by 31 5/8 tall.
>> It is marked as 20 gals. I would suspect the OPs is about 25 to 30 gals.
>> Those of you with better volume math can make corrections.
>>
> OK, Leon has done the math. :-)
>
;~) Actually my iPhone and one of it's apps did the math.
On 11/5/2013 4:34 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> I spent my total career working in Chemistry lab and used the metric
> system daily. It shines when you are doing volume, weight, and
> concentration type of calculations.
+1
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 11/5/2013 11:14 AM, Bill wrote:
> On 11/5/2013 11:51 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons of our water
>>> pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17 inches across. There's
>>> nothing on it telling me how many gallons.
>>>
>>> Tanks.
>>
>> Really? You post this to a woodworker's newsgroup? And you have not
>> tried
>> to find anything in the infinite resources of google to answer a question
>> that you should have been able to figure out with basic junior high
>> school
>> math? You should be embarassed to ask this particular question...
>>
>
> Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I don't
> recall ever hearing that in school.
> Bill
Now you have to consider if the tank is round or not or has flat ends or
ballooned ends before you can determine if enough information was given.
Assuming a flat top and bottom and a round cylinder the volume would be
45.809 gallons, whether filled with water or air.
On 11/5/2013 5:42 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Quick now, how many furlongs per fortnight?
>
> Inquiring minds .................................
At 60mph: 161279furlongs 149.19yd
Then again, depends upon if the "Creek Keeps Ris'n", and how many
gallons in the tank.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:35:17 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> This is my next gun purchase (any month now).
>>
>> http://www.kimberamerica.com/1911/gold-match-ii/stainless-gold-match-ii
>>
>> It's either that or the Laguna.
>
>My next one is the Ruger SR-40C. Soon...
I've got a blued Kimber Gold Match... very nice gun but like my Python
doesn't see the use of my more utilitarian iron...
On 11/10/2013 10:49 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> "The metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet."
So popular that since the election of 2008, it has only recently become
possible to find 9mm ammo, with any degree of availability, on the
shelf, from Academy to most gun stores and shooting ranges.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 11/11/2013 10:34 PM, Swingman wrote:
>
> I wish I could find another one, as I don't think I'll ever get it away
> from her:
>
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJustStuff#5945225742010054242
Damn to hell Google and their farking redirects to G+. Bastards.
https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJustStuff?noredirect=1#5945225742010054242
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 11/7/2013 7:47 AM, jloomis wrote:
> exactly.......and also the amount of air versus water is important.
> many of these tanks get waterlogged and are not set right for
> the cut off cut on pump switch.
Damn, that brings back memories. I was raised with water wells and
learned early on how to maintain them ... part of my job description as
a kid in exchange for food, clothing, and a roof over my head. :)
Times have certainly changed ... probably not a kid, and damned few
adults, within a hundred miles of me right now who would know what
causes a "waterlogged tank", much less how to fix one.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 11/12/2013 4:45 PM, Larry W wrote:
> Not meaning to take anything away from the Buckmark, but the Ruger
> Mark 3 is a fine shooting .22 pistol and in my experience readily
> available. I believe the cost, depending on exact model (and there are
> lots of variations to choose from), is competitive with the
> Buckmark. Personally, I don't consider the changes made from the
> Mark 2 to the Mark 3 to be improvements, except for the mag release button
> being moved to the side of the grip instead of the heel catch used on
> Mark 1 & 2, but it is still a great value.
I agree about the Ruger, damned fine firearm. Being the hardcore 1911
fan I am, if/when I buy another .22 pistol (have basically gifted my
daughter the Buck Mark Challenge SE), it will be in a 1911 platform,
something similar to this:
http://www.ruger.com/products/sr1911/models.html
or this:
http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?fid=028B&cid=051&tid=802
Sig also has one that is a bit cheaper and easier to find than the Browning:
http://www.gandermountain.com/modperl/product/details.cgi?i=GM447593
Damn, drooling just thinking about it. ;)
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 11:32:16 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 11/10/2013 11:12 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:53:04 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/10/2013 10:49 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet."
>>>
>>> So popular that since the election of 2008, it has only recently become
>>> possible to find 9mm ammo, with any degree of availability, on the
>>> shelf, from Academy to most gun stores and shooting ranges.
>>
>> I can find them at gun shows but not at local stores. .22LRs are even
>> more rare. I did see a brick (550) at a gun show for $70! I remember
>> paying under $10, not too long ago. OTOH, .45ACPs have been
>> available, even at WallyWorld, pretty much continuously.
>
>I do a good bit of pistol shooting lately and use these "ammo bots" to
>find and buy when I really need something. Although you have to factor
>in shipping, and therefore buying as much as they allow, you might find
>them helpful:
I'll check them out. I don't really "need" any ammo. I have a few
thousand rounds but I haven't been using much lately, either. When I
see it for a reasonable price, I buy.
>http://www.gunbot.net/ammo/rimfire/22lr/
>
>http://www.wikiarms.com/
>
>I've been known to place an order for .22lr at 3AM, because anything 'in
>stock' doesn't last long at that caliber.
Prezactly.
>9mm has made a big comeback on the shelves around these parts lately,
>and .45ACP and .38 special have not been that hard to find, although
>sometimes pricey.
Not so much here. I met a guy in the local Academy who said where he
lives the stock is exactly the opposite; loads of 9mm, no .45ACP.
>My shooting range of choice has a Sr night on Mondays where the range is
>free (normally $15) with the purchase of a box of ammo. I generally
>alternate between .45 and .38 on those nights and have managed to build
>up my inventory in all calibers to a comfortable level where I can
>afford to be choosy.
That's sorta where I am but I'd like to stockpile more. I can easily
shoot three or four hundred rounds in one visit to the range.
>My youngest daughter getting an interest in pistol shooting lately with
>a .22lr, has caused me to try and keep that in stock.
Good for her. ...and you. I have a couple of 22s. A Buckmark (a lot
of fun to shoot) and a Smith 617 (an exact copy of my 686 .357, but
with a different sized hole down the middle).
On 11/12/2013 6:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> This is my next gun purchase (any month now).
>
> http://www.kimberamerica.com/1911/gold-match-ii/stainless-gold-match-ii
>
> It's either that or the Laguna.
Yessiree.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:02:21 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman wrote:
>> On 11/7/2013 7:47 AM, jloomis wrote:
>>> exactly.......and also the amount of air versus water is important.
>>> many of these tanks get waterlogged and are not set right for
>>> the cut off cut on pump switch.
>>
>> Damn, that brings back memories. I was raised with water wells and
>> learned early on how to maintain them ... part of my job description
>> as a kid in exchange for food, clothing, and a roof over my head. :)
>>
>> Times have certainly changed ... probably not a kid, and damned few
>> adults, within a hundred miles of me right now who would know what
>> causes a "waterlogged tank", much less how to fix one.
>
>I do and boy do I NOT miss the days of the old water tanks with the
>diaphrams (external). These bladder tanks are so much better! Until they
>wear out, get filled with sand, etc., etc., etc...
We used to share a water system with 8 houses. There were exactly 3
of us that did all the work. The other bastards would call you up at
midnight expecting you to go fix the thing. Didn't take long for them
to figure out that being an ass wasn't much of a motivator. After the
earthquake changed the aquafer it really paid to be a guy who got up
at 4:30 AM for work could prime the well when needed and get his
shower. If you slept to late the water was gone. We went to city
water as we were already 275' deep. That's another story of how to
piss some other people off. Oh well.
Mike M
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 15:17:52 -0500, Keith Nuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 11/5/2013 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> >Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I
>>> >don't recall ever hearing that in school.
>>> >Bill
>> I don't recall that either. That's where the value of what we are taught
>> comes in. How do we think our way through something like volumetric
>> measurements, search a bit for some conversions, etc. It's the difference
>> between have learned how to think one's way through something versus simply
>> throwing a question out to the vastness of the world wide web, because it's
>This is the reason we should go metric. With metric measurements these
>types of calculation are greatly simplified.
Nonsense. As seldom as they're needed, it's easier to just derive the
conversions.
On 11/5/2013 2:53 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> On 11/5/2013 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>> Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I
>>>>> don't recall ever hearing that in school.
>>>>> Bill
>>> I don't recall that either. That's where the value of what we are
>>> taught comes in. How do we think our way through something like
>>> volumetric measurements, search a bit for some conversions, etc. It's the
>>> difference between have learned how to think one's way
>>> through something versus simply throwing a question out to the
>>> vastness of the world wide web, because it's
>> This is the reason we should go metric. With metric measurements
>> these types of calculation are greatly simplified.
>
> That wouldn't matter though Keith. Those who don't try to think their way
> through a problem won't do so any quicker with the metric system.
>
I think working the imperial system helps to keep our minds sharp. The
more metric the less thinking and reasoning and the more mediocre we
become. Thank you Jimmy Carter for trying to shove it down our throats.
> Assuming a flat top and bottom and a round cylinder the volume would be
>
> 45.809 gallons, whether filled with water or air.
Uhh a gallon of air? At what pressure? Kinda doesn't make sense to me because we are talking a volume when speaking in gallons and air is compressible. Ambient pressure? At what altitude?
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:06:43 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons
>> of our water pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17
>> inches across. There's nothing on it telling me how many
>> gallons.
>
>((8.5*8.5) * 3.14) * 44 = 9982 (and change) cubic inches.
>
>There are 1728 cubic inches in a cubic foot so your tank is 5.78 cubic feet,
>+-
>
>Figure 8 gallons in a cubic boot so that is 46.24 gallons. Or it would be
>if the entire thing had water which it probably doesn't; most likely, there
>is a rubber bladder and air space to provide pressure. So how much water is
>in it? No idea but the tank manual might tell you.
I wonder at the size of it whether it might be a 40 gallon water
heater not a pressure tank. But then if it is a pressure tank it would
hold about 20 gallons, given that half of a pressure tank is a gas
bladder.
Mark
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:53:04 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 11/10/2013 10:49 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> "The metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet."
>
>So popular that since the election of 2008, it has only recently become
>possible to find 9mm ammo, with any degree of availability, on the
>shelf, from Academy to most gun stores and shooting ranges.
I can find them at gun shows but not at local stores. .22LRs are even
more rare. I did see a brick (550) at a gun show for $70! I remember
paying under $10, not too long ago. OTOH, .45ACPs have been
available, even at WallyWorld, pretty much continuously.
Michael wrote:
> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons of our water
> pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17 inches across. There's
> nothing on it telling me how many gallons.
>
> Tanks.
Really? You post this to a woodworker's newsgroup? And you have not tried
to find anything in the infinite resources of google to answer a question
that you should have been able to figure out with basic junior high school
math? You should be embarassed to ask this particular question...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons
> of our water pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17
> inches across. There's nothing on it telling me how many
> gallons.
((8.5*8.5) * 3.14) * 44 = 9982 (and change) cubic inches.
There are 1728 cubic inches in a cubic foot so your tank is 5.78 cubic feet,
+-
Figure 8 gallons in a cubic boot so that is 46.24 gallons. Or it would be
if the entire thing had water which it probably doesn't; most likely, there
is a rubber bladder and air space to provide pressure. So how much water is
in it? No idea but the tank manual might tell you.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
On 11/5/2013 11:51 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons of our water
>> pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17 inches across. There's
>> nothing on it telling me how many gallons.
>>
>> Tanks.
>
> Really? You post this to a woodworker's newsgroup? And you have not tried
> to find anything in the infinite resources of google to answer a question
> that you should have been able to figure out with basic junior high school
> math? You should be embarassed to ask this particular question...
>
Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I don't
recall ever hearing that in school.
Bill
On 11/11/2013 11:27 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 22:34:43 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/brrQQPF7bUZXvWfxMRpo6E5RAU6IiXnoyxKcxZGfUCs?feat=directlink
>> I wish I could find another one, as I don't think I'll ever get it away
>>from her:
>
> That looks very much like the Browning Challenger pistol I used to
> have. It was the first handgun I ever bought and the last one to leave
> my possession.
Yep, all have common lineage. Buckmark is still in production. Minor
changes throughout the lineage of the Challengers - AFAICT, mainly in
the design of the magazines.
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 22:34:43 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/brrQQPF7bUZXvWfxMRpo6E5RAU6IiXnoyxKcxZGfUCs?feat=directlink
>I wish I could find another one, as I don't think I'll ever get it away
>from her:
That looks very much like the Browning Challenger pistol I used to
have. It was the first handgun I ever bought and the last one to leave
my possession.
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 22:34:43 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 11/11/2013 7:18 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Good for her. ...and you. I have a couple of 22s. A Buckmark (a lot
>> of fun to shoot)
>
>My youngest daughter loves to shoot this thing:
>
>https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/brrQQPF7bUZXvWfxMRpo6E5RAU6IiXnoyxKcxZGfUCs?feat=directlink
>
>I wish I could find another one, as I don't think I'll ever get it away
>from her:
>
>
>https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJustStuff#5945225742010054242
That's a Browning Buckmark (you can see the mark of the buck on the
side ;-). I have one similar, except that mine has a bull barrel.
On 11/5/2013 11:51 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons of our water
>> pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17 inches across. There's
>> nothing on it telling me how many gallons.
>>
>> Tanks.
>
> Really? You post this to a woodworker's newsgroup? And you have not tried
> to find anything in the infinite resources of google to answer a question
> that you should have been able to figure out with basic junior high school
> math? You should be embarassed to ask this particular question...
>
Mike, Assuming the the OP feels suitably embarrassed, is he still
encouraged to ask, or not? : )
Bill wrote:
> On 11/5/2013 11:51 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons of our
>>> water pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17 inches across.
>>> There's nothing on it telling me how many gallons.
>>>
>>> Tanks.
>>
>> Really? You post this to a woodworker's newsgroup? And you have
>> not tried to find anything in the infinite resources of google to
>> answer a question that you should have been able to figure out with
>> basic junior high school math? You should be embarassed to ask this
>> particular question...
>
> Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I
> don't recall ever hearing that in school.
> Bill
I don't recall that either. That's where the value of what we are taught
comes in. How do we think our way through something like volumetric
measurements, search a bit for some conversions, etc. It's the difference
between have learned how to think one's way through something versus simply
throwing a question out to the vastness of the world wide web, because it's
easier.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Markem wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:06:43 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons
>>> of our water pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17
>>> inches across. There's nothing on it telling me how many
>>> gallons.
>>
>> ((8.5*8.5) * 3.14) * 44 = 9982 (and change) cubic inches.
>>
>> There are 1728 cubic inches in a cubic foot so your tank is 5.78
>> cubic feet, +-
>>
>> Figure 8 gallons in a cubic boot so that is 46.24 gallons. Or it
>> would be if the entire thing had water which it probably doesn't;
>> most likely, there is a rubber bladder and air space to provide
>> pressure. So how much water is in it? No idea but the tank manual
>> might tell you.
>
> I wonder at the size of it whether it might be a 40 gallon water
> heater not a pressure tank. But then if it is a pressure tank it would
> hold about 20 gallons, given that half of a pressure tank is a gas
> bladder.
>
Good chance.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> On 11/5/2013 11:51 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons of our
>>> water pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17 inches across.
>>> There's nothing on it telling me how many gallons.
>>>
>>> Tanks.
>>
>> Really? You post this to a woodworker's newsgroup? And you have
>> not tried to find anything in the infinite resources of google to
>> answer a question that you should have been able to figure out with
>> basic junior high school math? You should be embarassed to ask this
>> particular question...
>
> Mike, Assuming the the OP feels suitably embarrassed, is he still
> encouraged to ask, or not? : )
Fair question. I would hope he would feel suitably encouraged to do a
little thinking and a little research before just posting a question for
someone else to do his work for him. Just to ask, so as not to have to
think one's own way through a problem is part of a greater problem these
days. - In my not so humble opinion...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 11/5/2013 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> >Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I
>> >don't recall ever hearing that in school.
>> >Bill
> I don't recall that either. That's where the value of what we are taught
> comes in. How do we think our way through something like volumetric
> measurements, search a bit for some conversions, etc. It's the difference
> between have learned how to think one's way through something versus simply
> throwing a question out to the vastness of the world wide web, because it's
This is the reason we should go metric. With metric measurements these
types of calculation are greatly simplified.
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 11/5/2013 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I
>>>> don't recall ever hearing that in school.
>>>> Bill
>> I don't recall that either. That's where the value of what we are
>> taught comes in. How do we think our way through something like
>> volumetric measurements, search a bit for some conversions, etc. It's the
>> difference between have learned how to think one's way
>> through something versus simply throwing a question out to the
>> vastness of the world wide web, because it's
> This is the reason we should go metric. With metric measurements
> these types of calculation are greatly simplified.
That wouldn't matter though Keith. Those who don't try to think their way
through a problem won't do so any quicker with the metric system.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> On 11/5/2013 11:51 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons of our water
>>> pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17 inches across. There's
>>> nothing on it telling me how many gallons.
>>>
>>> Tanks.
>>
>> Really? You post this to a woodworker's newsgroup? And you have not
>> tried
>> to find anything in the infinite resources of google to answer a question
>> that you should have been able to figure out with basic junior high
>> school
>> math? You should be embarassed to ask this particular question...
>>
>
> Mike, Assuming the the OP feels suitably embarrassed, is he still
> encouraged to ask, or not? : )
Is the OP posting from gmail? I have gmail filtered and only see responses.
Anyway, I have a Well-X-Trol Model WX-200 deep well expansion tank.
Its dimensions are app. 15 3/8 wide by 31 5/8 tall.
It is marked as 20 gals. I would suspect the OPs is about 25 to 30 gals.
Those of you with better volume math can make corrections.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @
willshak wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> On 11/5/2013 11:51 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Michael wrote:
>>>> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons of our water
>>>> pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17 inches across. There's
>>>> nothing on it telling me how many gallons.
>>>>
>>>> Tanks.
>>>
>>> Really? You post this to a woodworker's newsgroup? And you have not
>>> tried
>>> to find anything in the infinite resources of google to answer a
>>> question
>>> that you should have been able to figure out with basic junior high
>>> school
>>> math? You should be embarassed to ask this particular question...
>>>
>>
>> Mike, Assuming the the OP feels suitably embarrassed, is he still
>> encouraged to ask, or not? : )
>
> Is the OP posting from gmail? I have gmail filtered and only see responses.
> Anyway, I have a Well-X-Trol Model WX-200 deep well expansion tank.
> Its dimensions are app. 15 3/8 wide by 31 5/8 tall.
> It is marked as 20 gals. I would suspect the OPs is about 25 to 30 gals.
> Those of you with better volume math can make corrections.
>
OK, Leon has done the math. :-)
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @
On 11/5/2013 4:54 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 11/5/2013 2:53 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> On 11/5/2013 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>>> Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I
>>>>>> don't recall ever hearing that in school.
>>>>>> Bill
>>>> I don't recall that either. That's where the value of what we are
>>>> taught comes in. How do we think our way through something like
>>>> volumetric measurements, search a bit for some conversions, etc.
>>>> It's the
>>>> difference between have learned how to think one's way
>>>> through something versus simply throwing a question out to the
>>>> vastness of the world wide web, because it's
>>> This is the reason we should go metric. With metric measurements
>>> these types of calculation are greatly simplified.
>>
>> That wouldn't matter though Keith. Those who don't try to think their
>> way
>> through a problem won't do so any quicker with the metric system.
>>
>
>
> I think working the imperial system helps to keep our minds sharp. The
> more metric the less thinking and reasoning and the more mediocre we
> become. Thank you Jimmy Carter for trying to shove it down our throats.
I spent my total career working in Chemistry lab and used the metric
system daily. It shines when you are doing volume, weight, and
concentration type of calculations.
Mike Marlow wrote:
<snip>
> I would hope he would feel suitably encouraged to do a little thinking
> and a little research before just posting a question for someone else
> to do his work for him. Just to ask, so as not to have to think one's
> own way through a problem is part of a greater problem these days. -
> In my not so humble opinion...
I suppose you may be right (about it becoming more and more common) to
"just ask". Maybe that is a side-effect of growing up with Google.
Bill
They have a rubber bladder in them so the water is not a full tank.....
john
"Michael" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons of our water
pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17 inches across. There's nothing on
it telling me how many gallons.
Tanks.
jloomis wrote:
> They have a rubber bladder in them so the water is not a full
> tank..... john
>
Yeah - unless he's got one of the old galvanized tanks. Still lots of them
around in these parts. Old stuff of course. He really doesn't need to
worry too much about the size though. He has a ton of lattitude on what
size he goes with for a replacement. Smaller (not recommended usually),
bigger, lots bigger. As long as he has a good pump and a good recovery rate
on his well, the only real impact to going bigger will be a somewhat longer
recharge time, depending on how much bigger he goes.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
exactly.......and also the amount of air versus water is important.
many of these tanks get waterlogged and are not set right for
the cut off cut on pump switch.
large is best for continuous pressure supply.
john
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
jloomis wrote:
> They have a rubber bladder in them so the water is not a full
> tank..... john
>
Yeah - unless he's got one of the old galvanized tanks. Still lots of them
around in these parts. Old stuff of course. He really doesn't need to
worry too much about the size though. He has a ton of lattitude on what
size he goes with for a replacement. Smaller (not recommended usually),
bigger, lots bigger. As long as he has a good pump and a good recovery rate
on his well, the only real impact to going bigger will be a somewhat longer
recharge time, depending on how much bigger he goes.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 11/5/2013 12:14 PM, Bill wrote:
> On 11/5/2013 11:51 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons of our water
>>> pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17 inches across. There's
>>> nothing on it telling me how many gallons.
>>>
>>> Tanks.
>>
>> Really? You post this to a woodworker's newsgroup? And you have not tried
>> to find anything in the infinite resources of google to answer a question
>> that you should have been able to figure out with basic junior high school
>> math? You should be embarassed to ask this particular question...
>>
>
> Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I don't
> recall ever hearing that in school.
> Bill
Which in this case tells us very little if anything. A 'water pressure
tank' operates with a volume of pressurized air, either in contact with the
water or behind a bladder. It is impractical to guess what the volume of
the air vs. water might be and even that is not accurate since it will vary
with pressure. If there is no air in the tank at all then, given your
figure, the tank could theoretically hold something like 43 gallons. My
_guess_ would give it a usable capacity of 20 to 35 gallons if the pressure
bubble is intact and the pressure is reasonable by domestic water standards..
Swingman wrote:
> On 11/7/2013 7:47 AM, jloomis wrote:
>> exactly.......and also the amount of air versus water is important.
>> many of these tanks get waterlogged and are not set right for
>> the cut off cut on pump switch.
>
> Damn, that brings back memories. I was raised with water wells and
> learned early on how to maintain them ... part of my job description
> as a kid in exchange for food, clothing, and a roof over my head. :)
>
> Times have certainly changed ... probably not a kid, and damned few
> adults, within a hundred miles of me right now who would know what
> causes a "waterlogged tank", much less how to fix one.
I do and boy do I NOT miss the days of the old water tanks with the
diaphrams (external). These bladder tanks are so much better! Until they
wear out, get filled with sand, etc., etc., etc...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike M wrote:
, etc., etc., etc...
>
> We used to share a water system with 8 houses. There were exactly 3
> of us that did all the work. The other bastards would call you up at
> midnight expecting you to go fix the thing. Didn't take long for them
> to figure out that being an ass wasn't much of a motivator. After the
> earthquake changed the aquafer it really paid to be a guy who got up
> at 4:30 AM for work could prime the well when needed and get his
> shower. If you slept to late the water was gone. We went to city
> water as we were already 275' deep. That's another story of how to
> piss some other people off. Oh well.
>
Ugh! 275' deep. Imagine havingt to pull that pump out in the middle of
winter!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Swingman wrote:
> On 11/7/2013 7:02 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Ugh! 275' deep. Imagine havingt to pull that pump out in the
>> middle of winter!
>
> No kidding. We were at most 75', and that was deep. And when we went
> to plastic pipe, I could, and did, easily pull that myself.
Yup - I'm at 70' and I've pulled mine alone before also. Very do-able.
Just have to be careful not to create kinks as you lay out the water line.
Prior to installing a submersable pump, I had a deep well jet pump - I did
not find that any much easier to pull than my current configuration. Two
lines, foot valve, etc. In fact - I think I prefer my current setup. I
really prefer to simply NOT pull it...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike M wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:33:46 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 11/7/2013 7:02 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>>> Ugh! 275' deep. Imagine havingt to pull that pump out in the
>>>> middle of winter!
>>>
>>> No kidding. We were at most 75', and that was deep. And when we went
>>> to plastic pipe, I could, and did, easily pull that myself.
>>
>> Yup - I'm at 70' and I've pulled mine alone before also. Very
>> do-able. Just have to be careful not to create kinks as you lay out
>> the water line. Prior to installing a submersable pump, I had a deep
>> well jet pump - I did not find that any much easier to pull than my
>> current configuration. Two lines, foot valve, etc. In fact - I
>> think I prefer my current setup. I really prefer to simply NOT pull
>> it...
>
> Fortunately in those days I had an 80' boom truck as I did a lot of
> commercial lighting jobs as in parking lots and roadways. Our
> biggest problem was loosing the prime for the pump. That was mostly
> having a good ear to open the valve at the proper rate.
>
Losing prime with a deep well jet pump was a pain too. It could take a lot
of water to reprime that pump if the foot valve leaked. I went to a
submersible years ago and I'd never go back to a jet pump again.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
I have a similar situation. No more priming for me. My well is only 70 ft.
also.
One year it failed just before Christmas and when family and friends were
coming!
I had to pull the old submersible out......the wires going to the pump had
failed also,
and the rubber coating was cracked and failed. It could have been very
dangerous.
Put in a new jet pump and wiring.
I like the "Pump Tech" on and off when and if the water gets low. It senses
less draw on the
impellor and or resistance and shuts the motor off. When the well recovers
it goes on again....
I have not had too many water issues in 30 or so years and worry each year
when we get lack of rainfall.
This year is already very dry?
I did put in about 5200 gallon storage.....at least I have some for backup.
I remember the days of the darn foot valve.... and leaking losing prime....
never again...
john
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Mike M wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:33:46 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 11/7/2013 7:02 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>>> Ugh! 275' deep. Imagine havingt to pull that pump out in the
>>>> middle of winter!
>>>
>>> No kidding. We were at most 75', and that was deep. And when we went
>>> to plastic pipe, I could, and did, easily pull that myself.
>>
>> Yup - I'm at 70' and I've pulled mine alone before also. Very
>> do-able. Just have to be careful not to create kinks as you lay out
>> the water line. Prior to installing a submersable pump, I had a deep
>> well jet pump - I did not find that any much easier to pull than my
>> current configuration. Two lines, foot valve, etc. In fact - I
>> think I prefer my current setup. I really prefer to simply NOT pull
>> it...
>
> Fortunately in those days I had an 80' boom truck as I did a lot of
> commercial lighting jobs as in parking lots and roadways. Our
> biggest problem was loosing the prime for the pump. That was mostly
> having a good ear to open the valve at the proper rate.
>
Losing prime with a deep well jet pump was a pain too. It could take a lot
of water to reprime that pump if the foot valve leaked. I went to a
submersible years ago and I'd never go back to a jet pump again.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
jloomis wrote:
> I did put in about 5200 gallon storage.....at least I have some for
> backup. I remember the days of the darn foot valve.... and leaking
> losing prime.... never again...
> john
>
5200 gallons? Geeze - I'd be all summer nursing my well to fill that
sucker.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Mike M wrote:
>
> , etc., etc., etc...
>> We used to share a water system with 8 houses. There were exactly 3
>> of us that did all the work. The other bastards would call you up at
>> midnight expecting you to go fix the thing. Didn't take long for them
>> to figure out that being an ass wasn't much of a motivator. After the
>> earthquake changed the aquafer it really paid to be a guy who got up
>> at 4:30 AM for work could prime the well when needed and get his
>> shower. If you slept to late the water was gone. We went to city
>> water as we were already 275' deep. That's another story of how to
>> piss some other people off. Oh well.
>>
>
> Ugh! 275' deep. Imagine havingt to pull that pump out in the middle of
> winter!
>
Mine is 325' deep. It's been pulled twice since 1984 when the house was
built. The first time was when one of the wires somehow came undone from
the pump. It was reconnected and put back in. Saved the cost of new
pump, though the pulling and returning of the pump cost the same labor.
The second time was when a lightning strike hit in my yard and fried the
pump.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @
Yep....2 tanks.....I keep them full. Also have gravity feed to parts of the
property which is nice.
no pump needed at least to use it but not to fill it.
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
jloomis wrote:
> I did put in about 5200 gallon storage.....at least I have some for
> backup. I remember the days of the darn foot valve.... and leaking
> losing prime.... never again...
> john
>
5200 gallons? Geeze - I'd be all summer nursing my well to fill that
sucker.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>,
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 11/11/2013 7:18 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Good for her. ...and you. I have a couple of 22s. A Buckmark (a lot
>> of fun to shoot)
>
>My youngest daughter loves to shoot this thing:
>
>https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/brrQQPF7bUZXvWfxMRpo6E5RAU6IiXnoyxKcxZGfUCs?feat=directlink
>
>I wish I could find another one, as I don't think I'll ever get it away
>from her:
>
>
>https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJustStuff#5945225742010054242
>
Not meaning to take anything away from the Buckmark, but the Ruger
Mark 3 is a fine shooting .22 pistol and in my experience readily
available. I believe the cost, depending on exact model (and there are
lots of variations to choose from), is competitive with the
Buckmark. Personally, I don't consider the changes made from the
Mark 2 to the Mark 3 to be improvements, except for the mag release button
being moved to the side of the grip instead of the heel catch used on
Mark 1 & 2, but it is still a great value.
--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)
Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
Larry W wrote:
>
> Not meaning to take anything away from the Buckmark, but the Ruger
> Mark 3 is a fine shooting .22 pistol and in my experience readily
> available.
Stop right there... Anything made by Ruger is a tack nailer, and a gun for
life. Built to the hilt, and just a rock solid firearm. Customer service
and warranty policies that are unmatched in the industry - forget what the
others say - look at what Ruger will actually do. These guys still stand
behind their guns in a way that others only want you to believe they do.
Call them - you'll take to a Tech or to an Engineer (as necessary), they
will quickly figure out if you're competent, and if so, the will confer, and
then send you parts for free - just because you own a Ruger. BTDT. Send it
back to them? They will fix it and return a gun that you'd think was brand
new. Can't say enough good about Ruger - and it's all based on experience,
not advertising.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:35:17 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2013 4:45 PM, Larry W wrote:
>>
>>> Not meaning to take anything away from the Buckmark, but the Ruger
>>> Mark 3 is a fine shooting .22 pistol and in my experience readily
>>> available. I believe the cost, depending on exact model (and there
>>> are lots of variations to choose from), is competitive with the
>>> Buckmark. Personally, I don't consider the changes made from the
>>> Mark 2 to the Mark 3 to be improvements, except for the mag release
>>> button being moved to the side of the grip instead of the heel
>>> catch used on Mark 1 & 2, but it is still a great value.
>>
>> I agree about the Ruger, damned fine firearm. Being the hardcore 1911
>> fan I am, if/when I buy another .22 pistol (have basically gifted my
>> daughter the Buck Mark Challenge SE), it will be in a 1911 platform,
>> something similar to this:
>>
>> http://www.ruger.com/products/sr1911/models.html
>>
>> or this:
>>
>> http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?fid=028B&cid=051&tid=802
>>
>> Sig also has one that is a bit cheaper and easier to find than the
>> Browning:
>>
>> http://www.gandermountain.com/modperl/product/details.cgi?i=GM447593
>>
>> Damn, drooling just thinking about it. ;)
>
> This is my next gun purchase (any month now).
>
> http://www.kimberamerica.com/1911/gold-match-ii/stainless-gold-match-ii
>
> It's either that or the Laguna.
My next one is the Ruger SR-40C. Soon...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 15:57:36 -0800 (PST), "SonomaProducts.com"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Assuming a flat top and bottom and a round cylinder the volume would be
>>
>> 45.809 gallons, whether filled with water or air.
>
>Uhh a gallon of air? At what pressure? Kinda doesn't make sense to me because we are talking a volume when speaking in gallons and air is compressible. Ambient pressure? At what altitude?
A gallon is a volume, not a mass. The mass depends on the pressure;
the volume does not.
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:33:46 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman wrote:
>> On 11/7/2013 7:02 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>> Ugh! 275' deep. Imagine havingt to pull that pump out in the
>>> middle of winter!
>>
>> No kidding. We were at most 75', and that was deep. And when we went
>> to plastic pipe, I could, and did, easily pull that myself.
>
>Yup - I'm at 70' and I've pulled mine alone before also. Very do-able.
>Just have to be careful not to create kinks as you lay out the water line.
>Prior to installing a submersable pump, I had a deep well jet pump - I did
>not find that any much easier to pull than my current configuration. Two
>lines, foot valve, etc. In fact - I think I prefer my current setup. I
>really prefer to simply NOT pull it...
Fortunately in those days I had an 80' boom truck as I did a lot of
commercial lighting jobs as in parking lots and roadways. Our
biggest problem was loosing the prime for the pump. That was mostly
having a good ear to open the valve at the proper rate.
Mike M
On 11/5/2013 2:52 PM, Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> <snip>
>> I would hope he would feel suitably encouraged to do a little thinking and a little research before just posting a question for someone else to do his work for him. Just to ask,
>> so as not to have to think one's own way through a problem is part of a greater problem these days. - In my not so humble opinion...
>
> I suppose you may be right (about it becoming more and more common) to "just ask". Maybe that is a side-effect of growing up with Google.
For those that grew up with Google, they would know that if they typed
the following into Google:
8.5*8.5*pi*44 cubic inches to gallons
or
(17/2)squared*pi*44 cubic inches to gallons
or several other variations
They would get:
9987.1233 cubic inch = 43.2343 gallons
Dan
On 11/10/2013 2:07 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 11/10/2013 10:32 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 11/10/2013 11:12 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:53:04 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/10/2013 10:49 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "The metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you
>>>>> count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet."
>>>>
>>>> So popular that since the election of 2008, it has only recently become
>>>> possible to find 9mm ammo, with any degree of availability, on the
>>>> shelf, from Academy to most gun stores and shooting ranges.
>>>
>>> I can find them at gun shows but not at local stores. .22LRs are even
>>> more rare. I did see a brick (550) at a gun show for $70! I remember
>>> paying under $10, not too long ago. OTOH, .45ACPs have been
>>> available, even at WallyWorld, pretty much continuously.
>>
>> I do a good bit of pistol shooting lately and use these "ammo bots" to
>> find and buy when I really need something. Although you have to factor
>> in shipping, and therefore buying as much as they allow, you might find
>> them helpful:
>>
>> http://www.gunbot.net/ammo/rimfire/22lr/
>>
>> http://www.wikiarms.com/
>>
>> I've been known to place an order for .22lr at 3AM, because anything 'in
>> stock' doesn't last long at that caliber.
>>
>> 9mm has made a big comeback on the shelves around these parts lately,
>> and .45ACP and .38 special have not been that hard to find, although
>> sometimes pricey.
>>
>> My shooting range of choice has a Sr night on Mondays where the range is
>> free (normally $15) with the purchase of a box of ammo. I generally
>> alternate between .45 and .38 on those nights and have managed to build
>> up my inventory in all calibers to a comfortable level where I can
>> afford to be choosy.
>>
>> My youngest daughter getting an interest in pistol shooting lately with
>> a .22lr, has caused me to try and keep that in stock.
>>
>>
> A year or two ago, I picked up a Heritage Roughrider 22 revolver with a
> second cylinder for magnum ammo. Since then, it's almost impossible to
> find .22lr or magnum ammo. I just bought a Marlin 60 and the deal was
> you could buy a tub of 1400 .22lr rounds if you bought the rifle. This
> was at C.A.L. Ranch and the tub of ammo was $65.
I just "backordered" a bucket of 1400rd for .04/round plus shipping from
midwayusa.com.
The order is supposed to be filled by 12/31, must most folks I know who
have ordered this item in the past week say they have already received
confirmation of their order being filled early:
http://www.slickguns.com/product/backorder-remington-ammunition-22-long-rifle-36-grain-plated-lead-hollow-point-bucket-1400-5
At price, even the $15 shipping works to 05/rd, which is cheap these
days. Good thing is my daughter's SA pistol eats this particular round
with no problems.
I have ordered 325/rd bricks of .22lr in the past from Midway, and
included some gun parts in the order to get the cost per round down, and
was happy with their online experience, so far.
FWIW ...
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 11/10/2013 11:12 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:53:04 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/2013 10:49 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> "The metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet."
>>
>> So popular that since the election of 2008, it has only recently become
>> possible to find 9mm ammo, with any degree of availability, on the
>> shelf, from Academy to most gun stores and shooting ranges.
>
> I can find them at gun shows but not at local stores. .22LRs are even
> more rare. I did see a brick (550) at a gun show for $70! I remember
> paying under $10, not too long ago. OTOH, .45ACPs have been
> available, even at WallyWorld, pretty much continuously.
I do a good bit of pistol shooting lately and use these "ammo bots" to
find and buy when I really need something. Although you have to factor
in shipping, and therefore buying as much as they allow, you might find
them helpful:
http://www.gunbot.net/ammo/rimfire/22lr/
http://www.wikiarms.com/
I've been known to place an order for .22lr at 3AM, because anything 'in
stock' doesn't last long at that caliber.
9mm has made a big comeback on the shelves around these parts lately,
and .45ACP and .38 special have not been that hard to find, although
sometimes pricey.
My shooting range of choice has a Sr night on Mondays where the range is
free (normally $15) with the purchase of a box of ammo. I generally
alternate between .45 and .38 on those nights and have managed to build
up my inventory in all calibers to a comfortable level where I can
afford to be choosy.
My youngest daughter getting an interest in pistol shooting lately with
a .22lr, has caused me to try and keep that in stock.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
Leon formulated the question :
> On 11/5/2013 2:53 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> On 11/5/2013 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>>> Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I
>>>>>> don't recall ever hearing that in school.
>>>>>> Bill
>>>> I don't recall that either. That's where the value of what we are
>>>> taught comes in. How do we think our way through something like
>>>> volumetric measurements, search a bit for some conversions, etc. It's the
>>>> difference between have learned how to think one's way
>>>> through something versus simply throwing a question out to the
>>>> vastness of the world wide web, because it's
>>> This is the reason we should go metric. With metric measurements
>>> these types of calculation are greatly simplified.
>>
>> That wouldn't matter though Keith. Those who don't try to think their way
>> through a problem won't do so any quicker with the metric system.
>>
>
>
> I think working the imperial system helps to keep our minds sharp. The more
> metric the less thinking and reasoning and the more mediocre we become.
> Thank you Jimmy Carter for trying to shove it down our throats.
This is not an IMPERIAL problem. A US gallon is smaller than an
IMPERIAL gallon. :/
--
John G
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 09:38:13 +1100, John G <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Leon formulated the question :
>> On 11/5/2013 2:53 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>> On 11/5/2013 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>>>> Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I
>>>>>>> don't recall ever hearing that in school.
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>> I don't recall that either. That's where the value of what we are
>>>>> taught comes in. How do we think our way through something like
>>>>> volumetric measurements, search a bit for some conversions, etc. It's the
>>>>> difference between have learned how to think one's way
>>>>> through something versus simply throwing a question out to the
>>>>> vastness of the world wide web, because it's
>>>> This is the reason we should go metric. With metric measurements
>>>> these types of calculation are greatly simplified.
>>>
>>> That wouldn't matter though Keith. Those who don't try to think their way
>>> through a problem won't do so any quicker with the metric system.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think working the imperial system helps to keep our minds sharp. The more
>> metric the less thinking and reasoning and the more mediocre we become.
>> Thank you Jimmy Carter for trying to shove it down our throats.
>
>This is not an IMPERIAL problem. A US gallon is smaller than an
>IMPERIAL gallon. :/
It *is* an imperial problem. Of course, it's also an English (FPS)
problem. Just (slightly) different problems.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:04:06 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Marlow" wrote:
>>My next one is the Ruger SR-40C. Soon...
>---------------------------------------------
>A question to the group.
>
>Does S&W still make the K22?
I don't think so. It seems to have been replaced by the model 17 and
617. I have a 617, which I bought because it's identical to my 686
(.357 magnum).
>That was a very impressive piece of iron to a 15 year old kid.
The model 17 is going for more than a kid is likely to spend on a .22
(almost a grand!).
>> > Can someone give me an estimate on the number of gallons
>> > of our water pressure tank? It's 44 inches high and 17
>> > inches across. There's nothing on it telling me how many
>> > gallons.
>>
>>
>> ((8.5*8.5) * 3.14) * 44 = 9982 (and change) cubic inches.
>> There are 1728 cubic inches in a cubic foot so your tank is 5.78 cubic feet,
>> Figure 8 gallons in a cubic boot so that is 46.24 gallons. Or it would be
>> if the entire thing had water which it probably doesn't; most likely, there
>> is a rubber bladder and air space to provide pressure. So how much water is
>> in it? No idea but the tank manual might tell you.
>> dadiOH
>> ____________________________
>
>Yes, it uses a bladder so it's not a simple calculation. I wish I had a manual. It's been in a damp basement and looks like it's been in a war.
Are you sure that it is a bladder type tank ?
.. not a simple pressure tank .. ?
The bladder tanks that I've seen are shorter & bigger around -
- mine is ~ 22 inches diameter ~ 28 inches tall.
John T.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [email protected] ---
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 13:35:29 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 15:17:52 -0500, Keith Nuttle
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 11/5/2013 12:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> >Mikes, A US gallon has 231 cubic inches. I just looked it up. I
>>>> >don't recall ever hearing that in school.
>>>> >Bill
>>> I don't recall that either. That's where the value of what we are taught
>>> comes in. How do we think our way through something like volumetric
>>> measurements, search a bit for some conversions, etc. It's the difference
>>> between have learned how to think one's way through something versus simply
>>> throwing a question out to the vastness of the world wide web, because it's
>>This is the reason we should go metric. With metric measurements these
>>types of calculation are greatly simplified.
>
>Nonsense. As seldom as they're needed, it's easier to just derive the
>conversions.
+1
On 11/10/2013 8:59 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> jloomis wrote:
>
>> I did put in about 5200 gallon storage.....at least I have some for
>> backup. I remember the days of the darn foot valve.... and leaking
>> losing prime.... never again...
>> john
>>
>
> 5200 gallons? Geeze - I'd be all summer nursing my well to fill that
> sucker.
That's why Texans use windmills! ;)
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 11/11/2013 7:18 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Good for her. ...and you. I have a couple of 22s. A Buckmark (a lot
> of fun to shoot)
My youngest daughter loves to shoot this thing:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/brrQQPF7bUZXvWfxMRpo6E5RAU6IiXnoyxKcxZGfUCs?feat=directlink
I wish I could find another one, as I don't think I'll ever get it away
from her:
https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJustStuff#5945225742010054242
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
google.com/+KarlCaillouet
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 11/7/2013 7:02 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Mike M wrote:
>
> , etc., etc., etc...
>>
>> We used to share a water system with 8 houses. There were exactly 3
>> of us that did all the work. The other bastards would call you up at
>> midnight expecting you to go fix the thing. Didn't take long for them
>> to figure out that being an ass wasn't much of a motivator. After the
>> earthquake changed the aquafer it really paid to be a guy who got up
>> at 4:30 AM for work could prime the well when needed and get his
>> shower. If you slept to late the water was gone. We went to city
>> water as we were already 275' deep. That's another story of how to
>> piss some other people off. Oh well.
>>
>
> Ugh! 275' deep. Imagine havingt to pull that pump out in the middle of
> winter!
No kidding. We were at most 75', and that was deep. And when we went to
plastic pipe, I could, and did, easily pull that myself.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)