No more Velvia

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:56:25 -0000, "Bandicoot"
wrote:

"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:13:21 +0000, Walter Hofmann wrote:

Owamanga schrieb:
On 1 Mar 2005 10:24:26 -0800, "Chadwick"
wrote:

I think (but he *can* be confusing) Alan's point was film is in it's
frozen state at room-temperature. Much like the glass in your lenses
which are made of liquid that is frozen at the factory before being
shipped to the stores. Luckily it stays frozen at the temperatures we
use them at.

No. The glass in lenses (and elsewhere) is still liquid! Is just flows
very slowly.

Walter

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "flow".


Sorry Rox, but Walter is absolutely right. Take a micrometer to a really
old window and you'll find every pane is thicker at the bottom than the top,
due to flow. Of course, this takes a couple of hundred years before it's
practically measurable.

Na, urban legend. Just another lie we were taught at school by those
too ignorant to know any better.

--
Owamanga!

Walter Hofmann wrote:

Owamanga schrieb:

On 1 Mar 2005 10:24:26 -0800, "Chadwick"
wrote:

I think (but he *can* be confusing) Alan's point was film is in it's
frozen state at room-temperature. Much like the glass in your lenses
which are made of liquid that is frozen at the factory before being
shipped to the stores. Luckily it stays frozen at the temperatures we
use them at.


No. The glass in lenses (and elsewhere) is still liquid! Is just flows
very slowly.

Myth http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Walter Hofmann wrote:

Owamanga schrieb:

On 1 Mar 2005 10:24:26 -0800, "Chadwick"
wrote:

I think (but he *can* be confusing) Alan's point was film is in it's
frozen state at room-temperature. Much like the glass in your lenses
which are made of liquid that is frozen at the factory before being
shipped to the stores. Luckily it stays frozen at the temperatures we
use them at.


No. The glass in lenses (and elsewhere) is still liquid! Is just flows
very slowly.

Myth http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...
In article ,
jimkramer wrote:

[glass flowing slowly]

No, you need to broaden your time scales. And, maybe, Walter needs to add
a
few more very's.

I'm afraid he's right, and you've falled for an urban myth. Yes, it's
technically correct that (some) glasses are supercooled liquids, but they
don't flow.

The whole thing about medieval stained glass windows is, doubtless, going
to
be brought up soon, but it too is a myth. Old glass wasn't made to uniform
thickness, and for every stained glass panel that's been in-situ for
hundreds of years and is thicker at the bottom, there's another one that's
thicker at the top.

See :

http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html

or any of the other myriad links you can get on Google by typing in,
"glass
flow myth"

Thanks for the link. I particularly enjoyed:

ASTM (1996) "D4359-90: Standard Test Method for Determining Whether a
Material Is a Liquid or a Solid."

You really have to love the guys that come up with the ASTM Standards,
because every single one is good for some type humor either light hearted or
very dark.
Peter has been kind enough to add the glass panes. But just to be obnoxious
I think I'll stick by what I said. And make the observation that most people
can barely conceive of measurable changes in their lifetime; let alone
thousands or millions of years.

Jim

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...
In article ,
jimkramer wrote:

[glass flowing slowly]

No, you need to broaden your time scales. And, maybe, Walter needs to add
a
few more very's.

I'm afraid he's right, and you've falled for an urban myth. Yes, it's
technically correct that (some) glasses are supercooled liquids, but they
don't flow.

The whole thing about medieval stained glass windows is, doubtless, going
to
be brought up soon, but it too is a myth. Old glass wasn't made to uniform
thickness, and for every stained glass panel that's been in-situ for
hundreds of years and is thicker at the bottom, there's another one that's
thicker at the top.

See :

http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html

or any of the other myriad links you can get on Google by typing in,
"glass
flow myth"

Thanks for the link. I particularly enjoyed:

ASTM (1996) "D4359-90: Standard Test Method for Determining Whether a
Material Is a Liquid or a Solid."

You really have to love the guys that come up with the ASTM Standards,
because every single one is good for some type humor either light hearted or
very dark.
Peter has been kind enough to add the glass panes. But just to be obnoxious
I think I'll stick by what I said. And make the observation that most people
can barely conceive of measurable changes in their lifetime; let alone
thousands or millions of years.

Jim

In article ,
jimkramer wrote:

I think I'll stick by what I said. And make the observation that most people
can barely conceive of measurable changes in their lifetime; let alone
thousands or millions of years.

Reminds me of a joke set in my home town (Cambridge, UK).

There's a group of fellows at one of the Cambridge colleges sitting around
in the Master's Lodge after an evening meal at high table, and they're
discussing how to invest a particularly large sum of money which has just
been left to them by a successful alumnus.

One of the fellows speaks up, "How about putting it in the stock market?"

A particularly ancient looking fellow sitting next to him, in an old leather
armchair interjects, "The stock market is volatile and subject to crashes. I
think we should invest in property, as it hgiven us a very good return over
the last five hundred years."

This stirs a *seriously* ancient looking fellow in th ecorner, who looks
thoughtful for a moment, and then says:

"Perhaps, but the last five hundred years have not been typical."

In article ,
jimkramer wrote:

I think I'll stick by what I said. And make the observation that most people
can barely conceive of measurable changes in their lifetime; let alone
thousands or millions of years.

Reminds me of a joke set in my home town (Cambridge, UK).

There's a group of fellows at one of the Cambridge colleges sitting around
in the Master's Lodge after an evening meal at high table, and they're
discussing how to invest a particularly large sum of money which has just
been left to them by a successful alumnus.

One of the fellows speaks up, "How about putting it in the stock market?"

A particularly ancient looking fellow sitting next to him, in an old leather
armchair interjects, "The stock market is volatile and subject to crashes. I
think we should invest in property, as it hgiven us a very good return over
the last five hundred years."

This stirs a *seriously* ancient looking fellow in th ecorner, who looks
thoughtful for a moment, and then says:

"Perhaps, but the last five hundred years have not been typical."

jimkramer wrote:

I think I'll stick by what I said. And make the observation that most people
can barely conceive of measurable changes in their lifetime; let alone
thousands or millions of years.

I was told about the flowing glass by an incredibly bright engineer and
scientist who worked with me in the 80's/90's. I was awed.

He changed his tune, years later, as he was finishing his solid state
physics Ph.D (just before he left our co.). His work involved the
behavoiur of laser light in various solids and demanded a keen
understanding of solid structures, most of them glass (of many
varieties) and other transparent solids. I tend to belive him, esp. in
light of his changed story at the end of his Ph.D than all the various
opinions and 'reasoning' I read on usenet...

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

jimkramer wrote:

I think I'll stick by what I said. And make the observation that most people
can barely conceive of measurable changes in their lifetime; let alone
thousands or millions of years.

I was told about the flowing glass by an incredibly bright engineer and
scientist who worked with me in the 80's/90's. I was awed.

He changed his tune, years later, as he was finishing his solid state
physics Ph.D (just before he left our co.). His work involved the
behavoiur of laser light in various solids and demanded a keen
understanding of solid structures, most of them glass (of many
varieties) and other transparent solids. I tend to belive him, esp. in
light of his changed story at the end of his Ph.D than all the various
opinions and 'reasoning' I read on usenet...

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Walter Hofmann writes:

No. The glass in lenses (and elsewhere) is still liquid! Is just flows
very slowly.

Not true. That's an urban legend.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.