From: Bill Graham on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ea71g59a28u7rn30talvgln9emia7d2clf(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:10:36 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:jq41g5tka6k3u0futaov24hrmg3tpmg2vm(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:14:46 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yes, stagecoaches and horse-drawn buggies were always driven from the
>>>>> right. I've never seen any picture showing otherwise.
>>>>Strange....I wonder why their replacement automobiles were developed to
>>>>be
>>>>operated from the left side?
>>>
>>> Y'all keep thinking about the brakes and the right-hander needing to
>>> be on the right side of a stagecoach to apply the brakes. Most
>>> vehicle traffic in those days was wagons. Wagons with teams of horses
>>> or oxen didn't have or need brakes. The teams were controlled by
>>> reins. The driver sat behind the left horse so he could use his whip
>>> with his right arm. Sitting on the left side required that he have
>>> vision of traffic coming at him. That's what started us driving on
>>> the right.
>>> --
>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>
>>OK, but I would think that brakes would be a great help....What do you do
>>when you are going down a steep incline? Your wagon would be pushing up
>>against the heels of the rear of your team.
>
> Not so. A team is hitched to a center bar (the tongue), and the
> center bar is connected to the wagon. That bar maintains the distance
> between the wagon and two rear animals no matter what the incline.
>
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

You got me there....I guess I don't understand how the tongue is connected
to the horse....there must be a strap around his rear end and across his
chest......

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:fZednUem8613A53WnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:YpadnXQtebCZDp3WnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:VKqdnV9VoYc69J3WnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4aff9d4d(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4afe7080$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:r48sf5hvnn2lu320s5prvsp7agi8aar9ff(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> As a unit of liquid measure, the cup is what it is and does not
>>>>>>>>> have any
>>>>>>>>> particular relationship to the amount of coffee you're served in a
>>>>>>>>> cup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then if the unit "cup" doesn't have a relationship to a cup of
>>>>>>>> beverage
>>>>>>>> then what is the specific benefit of having that unit "cup" instead
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> using e.g 1/4 liter?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None. It's just a slang term. Actually, when it comes to a cup of
>>>>>>> coffee, it's usually closer to 1/4 liter than a cup, which is 1/4 of
>>>>>>> a quart. You have to remember that the world is 99% housewives, and
>>>>>>> only 1% engineers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A metric cup *is* 1/4 of a liter.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The most common coffee cup used here in the US is the Corning,
>>>>> "Correll Ware" cup, and it is almost exactly 250 cc's.
>>>>
>>>> Well, there you go. You're already used to one common metric measure.
>>>
>>> Most conversions are easy enough, even if pointless. Just looking at
>>> focusing scales makes it obvious that 10 ft. is about 3 m, and it's easy
>>> to remember that 1 kg is about 2.2 lbs. How many ounces in a kilogram or
>>> grams in a pound is more difficult, but it's hard to imagine why anyone
>>> would ever want to know.
>>>
>>> The bothersome one is Fahrenheit to Centigrade (or Celsius as they've
>>> decided to call it for some silly reason), or vice versa of course.
>>> Probably most people who've developed B&W film know that 68 F = 20 C,
>>> but since the conversion is non-linear it's not something that you can
>>> approximate instantly in your head.
>>>
>>>
>> I can't agree that it's, "non linear". Both scales are straight lines
>> that happen to cross at -40 degrees.
>
> Yes, they are linear in that way. What I meant was that converting one to
> the other is not a simple matter of multiplication or division, as is the
> case with kilograms and pounds. "Non-linear" was perhaps not the best way
> of describing that.
>
>> People learn the important conversions for the work they do. Most nurses
>> know that 98.6 F is 37 C for example.
>
> I doubt most nurses do know that, since Fahrenheit is still used for body
> temp, or was the last I knew. But anyway *knowing* 98.6 F is 37 C would
> not mean they could do the conversion. I've worked with a lot of nurses
> over a period of 30+ years and I can tell you with confidence that most of
> them couldn't do the conversion and get an accurate result.
>
> Just *one* of my doctors' offices has switched to metric scales, and that
> was only in the last year or so. The others still weigh you in good ol'
> pounds. The one that did switch, after I commented that I liked the look
> of my weight much better in kilograms, the nurse came back in a few
> minutes and told me what it was in pounds. When I asked if she'd done that
> in her head she said No, and produced a *table* showing the equivalents. I
> had already done the conversion in my head, which after all is just a
> matter of multiplying by 2.2. Now if a nurse can't do that in her head but
> needs a printed table for it, she sure as hell can't convert C to F or
> vice versa.
>
>
>
That's right.....Today, they don't even use classic thermometers....They
have an electric gun with a digital readout they stick in your ear, and it
reads the infra red photons emanating from your ear. It also converts from F
to CO at the touch of a button.....The machines are fast taking away our
ability to do simple arithmetic.

From: Neil Harrington on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009111515591582327-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-11-15 15:09:32 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:TumdnbSxOMgAFmLXnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:qrKdnVfcUtJk02LXnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2009111406385244303-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>> On 2009-11-14 04:27:19 -0800, "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au>
>>>>> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>> Savageduck said:
>>>>>>>> Wilba said:
>>>>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Wilba said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Years ago I read that left-hand drive is safer overall, because
>>>>>>>>>>> when a
>>>>>>>>>>> person is startled they tend to raise their non-dominant hand to
>>>>>>>>>>> protect
>>>>>>>>>>> their head. If at the time they are steering a car on the left
>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> road, 9 out of 10 will therefore sverve into oncoming traffic.
>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently the effect is statistically significant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems we left our history far behind. Have you ever noticed
>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> good old Wells Fargo stage coach driver sat, ...on the right,
>>>>>>>>>> shotgun
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> the left.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't see many of them 'round these here parts. :- )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note the driver on the left.
>>>>>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Concord_stagecoach_1869.png
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, that was the right, the shot gun was on the left.
>>>>>>> Now I don't know my left from my right!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I worked that out. :- )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder why they did it that way, since the driver is on the ejector
>>>>>> side...? Maybe the convention pre-dates the widespread use of
>>>>>> repeating
>>>>>> rifles.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it was a case of right handed shotgun shooters out numbering
>>>>> left handed shooters. That way they wouldn't have to replace a driver
>>>>> every time a left handed guard blew the driver away. Maybe a
>>>>> qualification for shotgun guards was to be right handed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe there was a rule of the road that stagecoach robbers had a "rob
>>>>> from left side" only sense of etiquette. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Savageduck
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe it had something to do with which side the shells were ejected
>>>> from when the rifle action was worked....It would be very annoying to
>>>> the driver if the hot shell casings were ejected into his face while he
>>>> was trying to get away from the bad guys.....
>>>
>>> I think most Winchester lever actions eject more or less straight up.
>>> Marlins I believe have always ejected to the right, but most of the
>>> rifles in stagecoach days were surely Winchesters.
>>>
>> Straight up wouldn't be too bad. The operator would learn to tilt the
>> weapon in the right direction before working the action, so the empty
>> shells would go where he wanted them to go.....Also, it would be just as
>> easy to shoot for both left and right handers.....
>
> ...but remember accurate fire from a moving, rough riding stagecoach with
> a rifle would be a rare thing.
> There was a reason the favored weapon was a shotgun. Many of those guards
> used a Greener 10 gauge, loaded with OO buck, that is a heavy load of
> lead. Greener also developed the first decent choke for shotguns and self
> ejector, making the lighter 12 gauge practical. It was the most copied
> design for double barreled shotguns until John Moses Browning

John Mose Browning, not Moses. Probably it's a common mistake.

> made his innovations and introduced the Winchester 1893 pump, perfecting
> it with the 1897.
>
> You might say Greener was Britain's contribution to the American West.

Are you sure those guards used Greeners? There were American 10-ga. shotguns
too, and I would think that Greeners would be pretty expensive for that
purpose -- though not nearly as expensive as the "London-made" guns of
course.


From: Savageduck on
On 2009-11-15 16:40:50 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

> On 2009-11-15 15:53:44 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:14:46 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, stagecoaches and horse-drawn buggies were always driven from the
>>>> right. I've never seen any picture showing otherwise.
>>> Strange....I wonder why their replacement automobiles were developed to be
>>> operated from the left side?
>>
>> Y'all keep thinking about the brakes and the right-hander needing to
>> be on the right side of a stagecoach to apply the brakes. Most
>> vehicle traffic in those days was wagons. Wagons with teams of horses
>> or oxen didn't have or need brakes. The teams were controlled by
>> reins. The driver sat behind the left horse so he could use his whip
>> with his right arm. Sitting on the left side required that he have
>> vision of traffic coming at him. That's what started us driving on
>> the right.
>
> Most of the ox wagons had a heavy screw which pushed a shoe against the
> wheel rim. It was adjusted and set when running downhill to stop the
> wagon from running into the team of oxen. They did not need a driver
> operated brake to slow the wagon down.
> For extreme downhill stretches such as coming down mountain passes,
> they would also lash brake poles or branches to the wheels to stop them
> from rotating. The ox wagons would literally skid down those mountains.
>
> As for the left or right side for traffic flow goes, I believe you have
> to look to marine rules of the road where you would leave approaching
> traffic on your port side and overtake to their port side.
> This is one of the reasons boats without a center helm are still right
> hand drive, or starboard today. That goes back to Viking days when the
> steering oar, or steorbord was mounted on right. It came to mean the
> side from which the ship was steered. That way you can check clearance
> when overtaking to the port.

BTW Tony, note the brake shoe on this ox-wagon;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Ox_wagon_at_Aliwal_North.jpg

and on this Conestoga wagon;
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Transport_Wagon_USArmyTransMuseum_DSCN7458.JPG>

--


Regards,

Savageduck

From: Neil Harrington on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:neednVO9LNjsEJ3WnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
> news:SbedneirUt0bC2LXnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:0088dc12$0$26871$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Years ago I read that left-hand drive is safer overall, because when a
>>>>> person is startled they tend to raise their non-dominant hand to
>>>>> protect their head.
>>>>
>>>> I question that. In the only near-head-on accident I ever had in my
>>>> life, I instinctively threw up my right hand (the dominant one) just
>>>> before impact. Broke my right wrist on the windshield.
>>>
>>> I have more faith in a statistical analysis of scientific data than in a
>>> single anecdote. :- )
>>
>> I would too if it really were a statistical analysis of scientific data.
>> Without having seen such analysis I'm inclined to doubt it. Ask a hundred
>> people to pick something up from the table, and see which hand they use.
>> I'll bet 128,000 zorkmids most of 'em use the dominant hand, unless they
>> have a beer in it. ;-)
>>
> Yes, and I'll bet that 90% or more of the, "statistics" you hear on TV
> haven't been developed with anything like scientific methods.....I know
> this from the fact that 90% of them have changed/reversed over the years.
> I now eat exactly the opposite of what I was told to eat as a tad for my
> good health, and half of that will be changed in the next few
> years......You can usually tell by asking yourself, "How do they know
> that?" If you can't figure out any way they could know, then you should
> assume that they can't know, and the conclusions they draw are bogus.....

And as a general rule, any assertion that begins with "Studies show . . ."
without actually identifying a source for the alleged studies, can safely be
taken as no more than someone's unsupported opinion.