I knew a guy at work that would cheat at WAR. He'd goad a few guys into playing, and as he took cards, he'd carefully slip the "power" cards onto the bottom of his stack. Doing this, his power cards were always in a run, and he'd be more likely to take out other players power cards over time. He didn't care how many poor cards he won or lost. He'd win about 80% of the time.
I think you mean titanium nitride - thats what they coat tools with. Similar composition, just nitrogen instead of carbon. Still a very hard, brittle material. And of course the good table saw blades have had tungsten carbide tips for a long time now. I understand perfectly well how composite materials work, but that isn't really how a squid beak(to stumble somehow back on topic) works; a squid beak works on a gradient from tip to base, and I had personally found the wootz discussion much more interesting than the composite materials discussion, thats why I kept going in that direction and was asking what materials you considered wootz.
I think we're agreed on pattern welding, I'm just not sure what you mean by wootz, do you take the historic examples only as authentic, modern materials that match in properties the ancient materials as well, or (clearly not this one from what I have read) any material with carbides which precipitate? Wootz does indeed have lots of strange bullshit surrounding it, and none of the classically recognized weapons used as historic examples were pattern welded, and I fully differential carburization is nothing necissary for making wootz, or pattern welding blades.(Although it could be done to either wootz or a pattern weld after the blade was fully formed IF you wanted and _really_ knew what you were doing so you didn't ruin the stuff.) I also agree that the historic ore is gone, but what do you think of modern wootz process that includes the critical elements through intentional alloying instead of accidental natural contamination in the source iron ore?
It's a shame it's basically totally offtopic, LOL. It's a very rare example, which very few people have seen, and easy to mistake for plated on superficial examination - however, once you see the carbide bands, it's clearly MUCH more than the simple goldplated show blade it appears to be. It makes me wonder if other strange metals could be "impossibly" alloyed under the right conditions.
If you've never enjoyed the pure, superoxygenated blood directly from your victims brain, slowly sucked out... wait, this is a HUMAN massage board! Last time I feed of a drunk chick I pick up at a bar...
Reading slightly out of date material would definately explain the confusion, the old blades were once thought to be pattern welded as you described, but recent research has show they are homogeneous in hardness, unlike true pattern welds, and that they are made from a single button of steel, rather than from welding different steels together. This is a fairly recent discovery, most older texts refer to pattern welded damascus and wootz damascus as the same material or indicate pattern welding as a part of the wootz-making process. When I say "wootz" I mean a steel with a matrix of a single hardness but containing layers of ultrahard carbides in visibly distinct bands, which lends a rather similar appearance. These are the critical characteristics found in all the historic blades recognized as wootz shown to have carbide segregation made in India or from ingots purchased from India; there was quite a trade in them due to the superiority of the material. The Wadsworth and Sherby process involves mechanical working of the steel in the temperature ranges during which cementite forms, oddly halfway between austinization temperature and room temperature, this mechanical working is one way to prevent the cementite formed from creating a brittle lattice in steels with VERY high carbon content. I believe this process is considered borderline as far as authenticity since it WILL work without the necessary alloying elements that allow you to recreate the carbides after dissolving them with heat, however, they will NOT return once the blade is held at a lower segregating temperature as historic wootz will. Neat to nothing is known about the lost Russian processes, because they are nearly as long gone as the historical methods from India, but it's believed some were similar in result to the Wadsworth-Sherby process, while some were nearly authentic. The Pendray process is believed to be nearly a recreation of the ancient process, and if performed with the proper alloying elements will provide results matching ancient wootz. The Watson process involves multiple thermal cycles, and also matches the ancient process in material characteristics. If these last two are considered wootz or not depends on how you define wootz. If you do so histogeographically, meaning made in the method of a certain time and in a specific place, only blades made from steel smelted using the ancient processes and now depleted ores from certain regions of India are wootz, and only modern made blades constructed from buttons of steel made back then count as far as modern blades. If you define wootz as a steel resulting from a certain process, then Pendray wootz is basically historical wootz, and counts. If you define wootz as steel that has visible carbide banding, Pendray, Watson, Wadsworth-Sherby, Russian, and historical wootz all count. If you define wootz as a material with certain physical characteristics defined by the ancient blades made in India(Uniform hardness of steel matrix, visible banding due to precipitated carbides, carbides which can be dissolved into the matrix and then re-segregated in the same pattern, lack of brittleness at very high, armor cutting hardness are the most recognized ones) then Pendray and Watson wootz will count as far as modern materials. I go by this last definition, as I generally define a raw material by its physical characteristics and to some extent the materials that go into it. I've had the luck to have the chance to play with historical wootz, have owned Watson process wootz, and have gotten to closely examine photos of both of those as well as Pendray wootz. A fun thing to do with a wootz blade is gently run the tip along a piece of glass - a standard knife will not do a thing to it, maybe chip it with enough pressure, but a wootz blade even used gently will scratch the glass with a nice, fine line from carbides much harder than the glass along the edge. At least one example of historical wootz is stainless, its a VERY unique piece, it has GOLD alloyed into the steel densely enough to prevent corros
We seem to be on the same page with pattern welds, but I think you misunderstand wootz. It's not overly hard, or brittle. The process for making wootz prevents cementite from forming brittle sheets by keeping it from forming a lattice; wootz on it's own is actually VERY flexible with proper heat treat. I've owned blades made from pure wootz, they aren't at all brittle. Wootz doesn't even have to be hypereutecoid, carbides can be precipitated in lower carbon steels(I believe down to about.75%, but my memory might be off on the exact number), it's just easier and requires less careful control with hypereutecoid carbon content, and hypereutecoid is more common historically than hypoeutecoid. I know one of the only people making wootz steel right now, so unless my brain is seriously jumbled I'm pretty sure I understand the material, and it isn't pattern welded. It does look like pattern welded steel, but that is because of differences in carbide density; the steel forming the matrix has been independently laboratory tested and confirmed to have a Rockwell C hardness of 56-57, no soft layers of iron, and this matches the uniform matrix hardness is historical blades, which were also folded to develop patterns, but not pattern welded. The technique was thought to be lost, but it turned out it wasn't the actual methods that were lost, but ores containing the correct alloying elements, vanadium and a few others are particularly suspect, and the actual techniques only abandoned because they no longer had the right affect on the steel. Al Pendray figured out a way to achieve carbide segregation using his own version of the ancient methods and the proper included elements, his method is closest to the historical way. A Russian fellow named Anosov is said to have found as many as 6 different methods, which he described in one sentence summaries useless to anyone trying to replicate them, and as he wasn't a fan of patents, his secrets died with him. Also in recent years, Wadsworth and Sherby as well as Daniel Watson have found ways to replicated the type of carbide segregation seen in real wootz. The ferrite/cementite structure in wootz isn't based on a pattern weld with two different structures, but on proper treatment of a single piece of steel; you can in fact heat a piece of real wootz until the pattern is actually gone, then regenerated it with thermal treatment at lower temperatures which will allow the carbides to again form around the seed elements.
I'm pretty positive either you are mixing up how wootz is made and pattern welding, or I'm the one not being clear in what I'm talking about. I'm saying steel is not a mix of wootz and ferrite, and that you don't pattern weld with wootz and pure iron. Wootz is a type of steel with precipitated carbides, but these carbides themselves are not wootz, nor is steel without carbide precipitation wootz. Folding steel billets together creates steel with an averaged set of characteristics based on the input steels, that's all, and is different from what is done with wootz. As far as I know, there is nobody who makes actual wootz who is pattern welding it with softer materials like pure ferrite, and I keep pretty informed on modern sword making. Doing such a pattern weld would only create a weaker material, properly forged wootz already has superior characteristics to other sword steel. It does contain layers of precipitated carbides in a pattern, but this pattern is created by the smith folding or otherwise manipulating the bar of steel; it isn't two or more separate billets of steel forged together, the entire bar of steel is wootz, not just the areas with the most carbide precipitation. You don't bring together anything when making wootz, the process is actually taking a single steel and causing it to segregate into higher and lower carbide areas, more a separating than a bringing together. You start with one bar of steel, and when you are done, you have one bar of steel with layers of varying carbide density. The matrix suspending the carbides isn't pure ferrite, it's steel, capable of high hardness and resilience ferrite is not, and layers of pure iron would be undesirable to fold in.
Also, if you know how to carburize steel properly it won't soften the steel, you only mess up the steel if you do something wrong, like overheat it, decarburize it(which many people do the entire time they are forging by not knowing the heating regions of a charcoal fire) or ruin the grain structure. Most smiths do all of these bad things. Folding billets of different steels together is actually only a decorative procedure in modern sword and knife making anyway, it's totally unnecessary, as there are so many choices of steels you don't have to combine others to get the characteristics you want for a blade. You can just buy steel with exactly what you want. Pattern welding is a risky process, as well, unless you are very careful when folding and of sure skill, you'll damage the strength of the steel by not getting perfect welds between the layers.
Case hardening does require high temperature, extended immersion, and anoxic heating environment, but differential carburization isn't the same thing. It can be done in an open forge with only a charcoal fire, if the smith is knowledgeable enough, and a bar of pure iron can be turned into a bar of sword hardness steel in under ONE hour if the smith knows his stuff, without burning or damaging the steel structure in any way. The hardness gradient which occurs is similar between the processes, but they are not the same process. I think you are confused in this next part... wootz is not something in a sword, it's a type of steel sometimes used for swords which has carbides segregated out of the steel matrix into visible layers, this improves cutting characteristics. Pattern welding does not create wootz, nor does it create carbide segregation, it only creates layers of different steels finely enough distributed to create something with the characteristics of homogeneous steel with the average of the hardness and other characteristics of the steels folded. Differential carburization is not an alternative process, it can be done with ANY type of sword or knife steel; simple carbon steel, high alloy steel, pattern welded steel, or wootz steel, to improve edge hardness and thus cutting characteristics without compromising toughness.
Thats the trouble with traditional Japanese differential hardening, the difference in hardnesses is slightly too great. The edges, while they hold a razor edge well when cutting softer targets, are more prone to chipping than is pleasant, and the bulk of the blade is pearlite, which while shatterproof, does not spring well enough; it's very prone to taking bends rather than snapping back into place like a spring. Don't think I'm calling the process bad or inferior, it's just different than other solutions and has its own set of problems.
While forming the base steel of a sword is often done by folding overhard and oversoft steel together as you describe, differentially carburized sword blades work in a similar way to case hardened materials with a gradient of hardness as you move into the material from the outside, leaving the edges, where extra carbon seeps in from both sides, very hard, the surface of the blade very hard, but the core like a spring. This is one of the last processes that can be used before harding a sword blade, and only a blade made by a very good smith with the right type of forge can do it, but the results are amazing, giving nearly the edge hardness found in differentially hardened Japanese swords but leaving a blade with MUCH greater toughness and no tendency to chip on the cutting edge.
Check out the picture if you've got a strong stomach.
http://floridakeystreasures.com/diving/puffer.shtml
I can't think of a worse creature to make that particular request of... the blowjob hamster, while also terrible(and I hate hamsters, things bite me all the time at work) at least couldn't bite the thing clean off through a Kevlar condom. My green spotted puffer Shakespeare has nibbled my fingers on accident, too, he's only about an inch in length from being able to take bites of me.
Puffer fish also have a shell-crushing beak attached to a relatively soft base, but they have the advantage of a jaw bone(thought they lack skeletal structures like ribs) to propel it. It still always amazed me how they managed to have such soft lips and skin and yet chew apart snails and other hard shelled foods so fast.
Accuracy of places and things does not mean evidence of miracles. Also, I see no reason that a movement would not have a problem gaining enough momentum to gain the attention of political leaders of the time in "only" a generation. Thats what Scientology has done, it's what the hippie movement in the 60's did... it's actually pretty typical of how those things work. Besides, faith needing evidence is not faith all, so I don't see the point to the argument.
If you use a mylar reflector glued onto PVC, you'll get MUCH more reflection that you will with metallic paints. Mylar and bright white paint are the best(I think they found the paints meant for painting walls to be used as projector screens to be the very best), to find exact plans for maximum reflection with home materials, simply research marijuana growing, these people have done ALL the work for you. I've done some simple tests with these bulbs in common incandescent aquarium fixtures, and I you DO lose some significant light, but not as much more as you'd think VS tubes, I believe this is mostly due to VERY poor reflector design in most commercial fixtures. When comparing aquarium design thread-in florescent(which use horizontal tubes, rather than spiral) with twice the wattage spiral type, the spiral are definately much brighter with the same reflector, though I agree not twice as bright. As the above poster mentioned, they do come in up to 6700k if you look hard, but it's still less optimal vs 10k. I've heard of doing reef with 6700k bulbs. Maybe a 9" hood made with 24 bulbs would be needed, to compensate for the spiral design and lower temperature light, but I still really want to try constructing one of these someday.
If you think 350 dollars is reasonable... you've clearly been pricing stuff for a reef tank. I don't see why costs for these setups is near what they are, I've calculated that if thread-in compact florescent were available in the right K's(hard to find them much above 5000k when I've looked) arrays of eight these bulbs at 26 watts each would fit the length of a four foot tank using only 3" in width, easily allowing over 400 watts to fit into one 6" or so fixture, two of which could be situated over an 18" wide tank leaving room. That would be over 10wpg in your tank of course, but even if someone wanted to run that(lets say they have a custom VERY deep tank that needs penetration) it would only cost 160 a year to replace every bulb, assuming 5$ a bulb, which you can often do much better than. Running only slightly more watts than you have currently with one fixture featuring 16 bulbs, this design has under 80$ a year replacement cost, and no ballasts to deal with at all, just simple arrays of sockets. I calculate construction cost with bulbs to be under 160$. Now, where to get thread type CPF in 10,000k...
They really would, currently high end lighting for reef tanks requires cooling fans, and quite frankly, all this stuff for fish tanks is WAY overpriced, I'd really welcome a cheap, energy efficient alternative that fits into a much tighter space.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfiltered coffee also contains more oils which will make it taste bitter, an even better reason.
Peculation, man. It's not quite as earthy as French press but still MUCH MUCH less bitter than drip.
I knew a guy at work that would cheat at WAR. He'd goad a few guys into playing, and as he took cards, he'd carefully slip the "power" cards onto the bottom of his stack. Doing this, his power cards were always in a run, and he'd be more likely to take out other players power cards over time. He didn't care how many poor cards he won or lost. He'd win about 80% of the time.
I think you mean titanium nitride - thats what they coat tools with. Similar composition, just nitrogen instead of carbon. Still a very hard, brittle material. And of course the good table saw blades have had tungsten carbide tips for a long time now. I understand perfectly well how composite materials work, but that isn't really how a squid beak(to stumble somehow back on topic) works; a squid beak works on a gradient from tip to base, and I had personally found the wootz discussion much more interesting than the composite materials discussion, thats why I kept going in that direction and was asking what materials you considered wootz.
I think we're agreed on pattern welding, I'm just not sure what you mean by wootz, do you take the historic examples only as authentic, modern materials that match in properties the ancient materials as well, or (clearly not this one from what I have read) any material with carbides which precipitate? Wootz does indeed have lots of strange bullshit surrounding it, and none of the classically recognized weapons used as historic examples were pattern welded, and I fully differential carburization is nothing necissary for making wootz, or pattern welding blades.(Although it could be done to either wootz or a pattern weld after the blade was fully formed IF you wanted and _really_ knew what you were doing so you didn't ruin the stuff.) I also agree that the historic ore is gone, but what do you think of modern wootz process that includes the critical elements through intentional alloying instead of accidental natural contamination in the source iron ore?
It's a shame it's basically totally offtopic, LOL. It's a very rare example, which very few people have seen, and easy to mistake for plated on superficial examination - however, once you see the carbide bands, it's clearly MUCH more than the simple goldplated show blade it appears to be. It makes me wonder if other strange metals could be "impossibly" alloyed under the right conditions.
If you've never enjoyed the pure, superoxygenated blood directly from your victims brain, slowly sucked out... wait, this is a HUMAN massage board! Last time I feed of a drunk chick I pick up at a bar...
Reading slightly out of date material would definately explain the confusion, the old blades were once thought to be pattern welded as you described, but recent research has show they are homogeneous in hardness, unlike true pattern welds, and that they are made from a single button of steel, rather than from welding different steels together. This is a fairly recent discovery, most older texts refer to pattern welded damascus and wootz damascus as the same material or indicate pattern welding as a part of the wootz-making process. When I say "wootz" I mean a steel with a matrix of a single hardness but containing layers of ultrahard carbides in visibly distinct bands, which lends a rather similar appearance. These are the critical characteristics found in all the historic blades recognized as wootz shown to have carbide segregation made in India or from ingots purchased from India; there was quite a trade in them due to the superiority of the material. The Wadsworth and Sherby process involves mechanical working of the steel in the temperature ranges during which cementite forms, oddly halfway between austinization temperature and room temperature, this mechanical working is one way to prevent the cementite formed from creating a brittle lattice in steels with VERY high carbon content. I believe this process is considered borderline as far as authenticity since it WILL work without the necessary alloying elements that allow you to recreate the carbides after dissolving them with heat, however, they will NOT return once the blade is held at a lower segregating temperature as historic wootz will. Neat to nothing is known about the lost Russian processes, because they are nearly as long gone as the historical methods from India, but it's believed some were similar in result to the Wadsworth-Sherby process, while some were nearly authentic. The Pendray process is believed to be nearly a recreation of the ancient process, and if performed with the proper alloying elements will provide results matching ancient wootz. The Watson process involves multiple thermal cycles, and also matches the ancient process in material characteristics. If these last two are considered wootz or not depends on how you define wootz. If you do so histogeographically, meaning made in the method of a certain time and in a specific place, only blades made from steel smelted using the ancient processes and now depleted ores from certain regions of India are wootz, and only modern made blades constructed from buttons of steel made back then count as far as modern blades. If you define wootz as a steel resulting from a certain process, then Pendray wootz is basically historical wootz, and counts. If you define wootz as steel that has visible carbide banding, Pendray, Watson, Wadsworth-Sherby, Russian, and historical wootz all count. If you define wootz as a material with certain physical characteristics defined by the ancient blades made in India(Uniform hardness of steel matrix, visible banding due to precipitated carbides, carbides which can be dissolved into the matrix and then re-segregated in the same pattern, lack of brittleness at very high, armor cutting hardness are the most recognized ones) then Pendray and Watson wootz will count as far as modern materials. I go by this last definition, as I generally define a raw material by its physical characteristics and to some extent the materials that go into it. I've had the luck to have the chance to play with historical wootz, have owned Watson process wootz, and have gotten to closely examine photos of both of those as well as Pendray wootz. A fun thing to do with a wootz blade is gently run the tip along a piece of glass - a standard knife will not do a thing to it, maybe chip it with enough pressure, but a wootz blade even used gently will scratch the glass with a nice, fine line from carbides much harder than the glass along the edge. At least one example of historical wootz is stainless, its a VERY unique piece, it has GOLD alloyed into the steel densely enough to prevent corros
We seem to be on the same page with pattern welds, but I think you misunderstand wootz. It's not overly hard, or brittle. The process for making wootz prevents cementite from forming brittle sheets by keeping it from forming a lattice; wootz on it's own is actually VERY flexible with proper heat treat. I've owned blades made from pure wootz, they aren't at all brittle. Wootz doesn't even have to be hypereutecoid, carbides can be precipitated in lower carbon steels(I believe down to about .75%, but my memory might be off on the exact number), it's just easier and requires less careful control with hypereutecoid carbon content, and hypereutecoid is more common historically than hypoeutecoid. I know one of the only people making wootz steel right now, so unless my brain is seriously jumbled I'm pretty sure I understand the material, and it isn't pattern welded. It does look like pattern welded steel, but that is because of differences in carbide density; the steel forming the matrix has been independently laboratory tested and confirmed to have a Rockwell C hardness of 56-57, no soft layers of iron, and this matches the uniform matrix hardness is historical blades, which were also folded to develop patterns, but not pattern welded. The technique was thought to be lost, but it turned out it wasn't the actual methods that were lost, but ores containing the correct alloying elements, vanadium and a few others are particularly suspect, and the actual techniques only abandoned because they no longer had the right affect on the steel. Al Pendray figured out a way to achieve carbide segregation using his own version of the ancient methods and the proper included elements, his method is closest to the historical way. A Russian fellow named Anosov is said to have found as many as 6 different methods, which he described in one sentence summaries useless to anyone trying to replicate them, and as he wasn't a fan of patents, his secrets died with him. Also in recent years, Wadsworth and Sherby as well as Daniel Watson have found ways to replicated the type of carbide segregation seen in real wootz. The ferrite/cementite structure in wootz isn't based on a pattern weld with two different structures, but on proper treatment of a single piece of steel; you can in fact heat a piece of real wootz until the pattern is actually gone, then regenerated it with thermal treatment at lower temperatures which will allow the carbides to again form around the seed elements.
I'm pretty positive either you are mixing up how wootz is made and pattern welding, or I'm the one not being clear in what I'm talking about. I'm saying steel is not a mix of wootz and ferrite, and that you don't pattern weld with wootz and pure iron. Wootz is a type of steel with precipitated carbides, but these carbides themselves are not wootz, nor is steel without carbide precipitation wootz. Folding steel billets together creates steel with an averaged set of characteristics based on the input steels, that's all, and is different from what is done with wootz. As far as I know, there is nobody who makes actual wootz who is pattern welding it with softer materials like pure ferrite, and I keep pretty informed on modern sword making. Doing such a pattern weld would only create a weaker material, properly forged wootz already has superior characteristics to other sword steel. It does contain layers of precipitated carbides in a pattern, but this pattern is created by the smith folding or otherwise manipulating the bar of steel; it isn't two or more separate billets of steel forged together, the entire bar of steel is wootz, not just the areas with the most carbide precipitation. You don't bring together anything when making wootz, the process is actually taking a single steel and causing it to segregate into higher and lower carbide areas, more a separating than a bringing together. You start with one bar of steel, and when you are done, you have one bar of steel with layers of varying carbide density. The matrix suspending the carbides isn't pure ferrite, it's steel, capable of high hardness and resilience ferrite is not, and layers of pure iron would be undesirable to fold in. Also, if you know how to carburize steel properly it won't soften the steel, you only mess up the steel if you do something wrong, like overheat it, decarburize it(which many people do the entire time they are forging by not knowing the heating regions of a charcoal fire) or ruin the grain structure. Most smiths do all of these bad things. Folding billets of different steels together is actually only a decorative procedure in modern sword and knife making anyway, it's totally unnecessary, as there are so many choices of steels you don't have to combine others to get the characteristics you want for a blade. You can just buy steel with exactly what you want. Pattern welding is a risky process, as well, unless you are very careful when folding and of sure skill, you'll damage the strength of the steel by not getting perfect welds between the layers.
Case hardening does require high temperature, extended immersion, and anoxic heating environment, but differential carburization isn't the same thing. It can be done in an open forge with only a charcoal fire, if the smith is knowledgeable enough, and a bar of pure iron can be turned into a bar of sword hardness steel in under ONE hour if the smith knows his stuff, without burning or damaging the steel structure in any way. The hardness gradient which occurs is similar between the processes, but they are not the same process. I think you are confused in this next part... wootz is not something in a sword, it's a type of steel sometimes used for swords which has carbides segregated out of the steel matrix into visible layers, this improves cutting characteristics. Pattern welding does not create wootz, nor does it create carbide segregation, it only creates layers of different steels finely enough distributed to create something with the characteristics of homogeneous steel with the average of the hardness and other characteristics of the steels folded. Differential carburization is not an alternative process, it can be done with ANY type of sword or knife steel; simple carbon steel, high alloy steel, pattern welded steel, or wootz steel, to improve edge hardness and thus cutting characteristics without compromising toughness.
Thats the trouble with traditional Japanese differential hardening, the difference in hardnesses is slightly too great. The edges, while they hold a razor edge well when cutting softer targets, are more prone to chipping than is pleasant, and the bulk of the blade is pearlite, which while shatterproof, does not spring well enough; it's very prone to taking bends rather than snapping back into place like a spring. Don't think I'm calling the process bad or inferior, it's just different than other solutions and has its own set of problems.
While forming the base steel of a sword is often done by folding overhard and oversoft steel together as you describe, differentially carburized sword blades work in a similar way to case hardened materials with a gradient of hardness as you move into the material from the outside, leaving the edges, where extra carbon seeps in from both sides, very hard, the surface of the blade very hard, but the core like a spring. This is one of the last processes that can be used before harding a sword blade, and only a blade made by a very good smith with the right type of forge can do it, but the results are amazing, giving nearly the edge hardness found in differentially hardened Japanese swords but leaving a blade with MUCH greater toughness and no tendency to chip on the cutting edge.
Check out the picture if you've got a strong stomach. http://floridakeystreasures.com/diving/puffer.shtml I can't think of a worse creature to make that particular request of... the blowjob hamster, while also terrible(and I hate hamsters, things bite me all the time at work) at least couldn't bite the thing clean off through a Kevlar condom. My green spotted puffer Shakespeare has nibbled my fingers on accident, too, he's only about an inch in length from being able to take bites of me.
Puffer fish also have a shell-crushing beak attached to a relatively soft base, but they have the advantage of a jaw bone(thought they lack skeletal structures like ribs) to propel it. It still always amazed me how they managed to have such soft lips and skin and yet chew apart snails and other hard shelled foods so fast.
Accuracy of places and things does not mean evidence of miracles. Also, I see no reason that a movement would not have a problem gaining enough momentum to gain the attention of political leaders of the time in "only" a generation. Thats what Scientology has done, it's what the hippie movement in the 60's did... it's actually pretty typical of how those things work. Besides, faith needing evidence is not faith all, so I don't see the point to the argument.
Works for NES cartridges too, if blowing it happened to fail.
Try Joe Pesci, I've heard he has better numbers.
Tangentially related only, but nearly the best damn weapon in SH2 was the board with a nail through it you start with. That thing ROCKED.
but it's got ELECTROLYTES!
If you use a mylar reflector glued onto PVC, you'll get MUCH more reflection that you will with metallic paints. Mylar and bright white paint are the best(I think they found the paints meant for painting walls to be used as projector screens to be the very best), to find exact plans for maximum reflection with home materials, simply research marijuana growing, these people have done ALL the work for you. I've done some simple tests with these bulbs in common incandescent aquarium fixtures, and I you DO lose some significant light, but not as much more as you'd think VS tubes, I believe this is mostly due to VERY poor reflector design in most commercial fixtures. When comparing aquarium design thread-in florescent(which use horizontal tubes, rather than spiral) with twice the wattage spiral type, the spiral are definately much brighter with the same reflector, though I agree not twice as bright. As the above poster mentioned, they do come in up to 6700k if you look hard, but it's still less optimal vs 10k. I've heard of doing reef with 6700k bulbs. Maybe a 9" hood made with 24 bulbs would be needed, to compensate for the spiral design and lower temperature light, but I still really want to try constructing one of these someday.
If you think 350 dollars is reasonable... you've clearly been pricing stuff for a reef tank. I don't see why costs for these setups is near what they are, I've calculated that if thread-in compact florescent were available in the right K's(hard to find them much above 5000k when I've looked) arrays of eight these bulbs at 26 watts each would fit the length of a four foot tank using only 3" in width, easily allowing over 400 watts to fit into one 6" or so fixture, two of which could be situated over an 18" wide tank leaving room. That would be over 10wpg in your tank of course, but even if someone wanted to run that(lets say they have a custom VERY deep tank that needs penetration) it would only cost 160 a year to replace every bulb, assuming 5$ a bulb, which you can often do much better than. Running only slightly more watts than you have currently with one fixture featuring 16 bulbs, this design has under 80$ a year replacement cost, and no ballasts to deal with at all, just simple arrays of sockets. I calculate construction cost with bulbs to be under 160$. Now, where to get thread type CPF in 10,000k...
They really would, currently high end lighting for reef tanks requires cooling fans, and quite frankly, all this stuff for fish tanks is WAY overpriced, I'd really welcome a cheap, energy efficient alternative that fits into a much tighter space.
In neoconservative USA, you have more freedom to control of what goes into or comes out of your body AFTER death than you do before.
I find it interesting that we have more rights as to what goes into and comes out of our bodies AFTER we're dead.