Homebrew_PCBs

Hi
This is going to sound a little OT. I've gutted a Epson 400 and a
scanner with 2 guide rods. I'm putting the print head and drive
mechanism on top of the scanner motions system. I'm doing this to make
a flat bed printer - like a flat bed scanner. Since I'm working on a
system that prints onto boards to make PCBs, I'm hoping this is not to
OT. The hitch I'm hitting is finding gears, axles for the gears, and a
belt drive system for the X axis so that I can change the paper drive
system to moving the head/head movement system. The paper drive uses a
stepper that worked through 3 gears down to driving the paper roller. I
don't have the gear ratio yet. My eyes started crossing before I was
done counting ;). The problem is the final gear (that is on the
roller), which has an I.D. of about 5/8", way off of anything I can
use for an axle. I searched around for "small gears" and "robot gears"
on vivisimo, but the stores I found did not have much of a selection of
gears, and no timing belts of the right size (I need about a 26" timing
belt).
I'd appreciate it if anyone has any info on where to get these
components.
Also, I'm using the printers X axis (paper roller control system) for
easy interfacing. In effect the printer electronics won't know there is
any change. I'm not real happy with using a belt drive, since it will
stretch, and the print head & drive (Y axis) mechanism have a bit of
mass. This is going to be slammed around every time the printer moves
the head down a line, but I have to be able to intervene when I get to
the bottom, I need to grab the head and move it back to the top whenever
the printer does a page feed. I want to do this by having a mechanism
that essentially unhooks the normal drive servo system and moves the
head back when it detects that the printer is form feeding, then
unblocks the optical sensor that checks when the paper feed hardware has
done a complete cycle and unblocks the paper present switch.
If anyone has any ideas about a way to get around using a belt, I'd
appreciate that to, or an idea for which newsgroups to search. I looked
for the 2 member epson_400_and_optics_9600_pcb_printing group but
couldn't find it ;).
Richard

On Fri, 07 May 2004 08:34:03 -0700, Richard Mustakos <rmustakos@...>
wrote:

> Hi
> This is going to sound a little OT.

This is as spot on topic as it gets.
I'm highly interested in this, and others too.

The problem with inkjet printing is NOT the flatbed printer.
the problem is we do not know if we can apply a good layer of resist
directly on copper.


PLEASE run a piece of aluminium kitchen foil through the printer first,
and make it work. stick it to a sheet of paper.

You can even etch the aluminium with the common etchants to see if it is a
good resist.


A short note on how i would go about converting the printer:

Don't go for a flatbed approach.
there is a much more simple way.

you simply "balance" a big pcb (or other plate) on the main transport
roller (the one under
the head.
this roller moves at the exactly correct speed already.
The plate can be stabilised by running on a single center rail.
the paper feed switch if often optical, and can simply be mounted so that
this plate.
operated it.

You only need to raise the print head a bit, which should not pose a
problem.


PLEASE try to aluminium foil first, it is easy to do and will provide fast
results.
there is NO point in making a flatbed printer and then trashing it because
the printing
itself doesn't work.

For ink i would try the permanent marker ink you use to touchup boards,
maybe diluted
1:1 with alcohol.

Especially the epson 400/600 are very interesting, because they are piezo
and widely
available. it think if any printer works then it will be one of these.

ST

> <snip>
> the problem is we do not know if we can apply a good layer of resist
> directly on copper.
> <snip>
> ST

Well, actually, I'm not doing this to print resist. The first
experiment I'm going to do is print straight ink onto a mixture of
powdered flux and powdered solder. Powder, not paste. Given that the
powder won't stick to the blank board on it's own, I have to make the
head move, or the acceleration of the board will leave the powders
behind. I think it will also help for repeatability.
The first test is to see if the ink, by wetting the flux/solder
powders, will bind them enough to hold them still while I clean off
the remainder. In effect, I lay down the powder and turn it to paste
where I want to keep the trace. If this works, then I can print
circuit boards without chemicals. I will try and find something other
than fiberglass for the substrate, as I want something that the
reflowed solder/flux won't just bead up on. I was thinking of trying
thick cardstock, or non-corrogated cardboard. My concern is to get
something that is rough enough for the solder to hold onto when it
solidifies, but that does not burn too fast.
If it does not work, then I buy some water based/silver based
conductive ink from Precisa, which is $52 for 0.1 Kg (smallest order).
I don't know how many ml, but I suspect it is in the single digits
range. The silver flakes are 3-5 microns, so I don't think it's an
issue feeding through the inkjet. The tech guy for Precisa said the
issue with inkjet printing of their inks is settling. I'm planning on
sacraficing a black Epson 400 cartridge to determine construction. I
want to set it up so I can shake it. I think that by default it's
filled with foam, but need to find out for sure. That ink gets
everywhere, and stains in a heartbeat ;)
Richard

I have been following this thread with great interest.
Anyway, here is a line of products you may find
helpful:

-------------------------------------------------
Aellora presents BrightWhite, a white-pigmented
UV-curable inkjet ink suitable for use on a range of
plastic substrates, including ABS, PVC, PET, vinyl,
fabric, and painted and coated materials. The ink is
pigmented with specially processed Titanium Dioxide
(TiO2) for strong whiteness and consistent jettability
and print coverage. Special surface treatments or
separate UV-pinning stations are not required. Aellora
Digital, 94 Congress St., PO Box 583, Keene, NH 03431,
603-357-1715, fax: 603-352-4773,

On the web at: www.aellora.com.

------------------------------------------------

I don't claim to be a ink/inkjet specialist, but I do
know a little about polymer chemistry and any compound
that requires uv curing would most likely be
compatible with cucl, fecl and the persulfates. It's
only enemy would probably be sodium hydroxide which
would eat it right off with the copper.

Best

Marvin Dickens
Alpharetta, Georgia USA

=====
Registered Linux User No. 80253
If you use linux, get counted at:
http://www.linuxcounter.org




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

Marvin
They also have some inkjet resists. I've got an email in to them to
find out about pricing and data sheets. I kind of wonder about the UV
inks, if the only thing that will remove them will also remove the
remaining copper, it kind of makes an issue of itself ;)
Also, I talked about www.precisa.com - my mistake, it is actually
www.precisia.net. They are a subsidiary of Flint Hill Ink, formed
last year to handle electronic inks.
The have water soluble silver and carbon based inks, as well as non
water based.
Richard

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, mpdickens <md30022@y...> wrote:
> I have been following this thread with great interest.
> Anyway, here is a line of products you may find
> helpful:
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> <snip>
> On the web at: www.aellora.com.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> <snip> It's
> only enemy would probably be sodium hydroxide which
> would eat it right off with the copper.
> <snip>
> Marvin Dickens
> Alpharetta, Georgia USA

Oh, that's sad.
I really do not like that "powder" idea and printing conductive ink
is too expensive....

I thought i have found someone who will try the epson for me....
seems i must do this myself.

> conductive ink from Precisa, which is $52 for 0.1 Kg (smallest order).

1kg = 1l water, isn't that fun?
i expect the ink to be maybe 2 to 4 times as heavy as water, so
you maybe get 30ml. definitely more than 10ml.

ST

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Trethan
<stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:

> Oh, that's sad.
> I really do not like that "powder" idea and printing conductive ink
> is too expensive....
>
> I thought i have found someone who will try the epson for me....
> seems i must do this myself.
>
> > conductive ink from Precisa, which is $52 for 0.1 Kg (smallest

order).

>
> 1kg = 1l water, isn't that fun?
> i expect the ink to be maybe 2 to 4 times as heavy as water, so
> you maybe get 30ml. definitely more than 10ml.
>
> ST

OK, so 1 kg = 1 litre, so 0.1 kg = 0.1 litre

0.1 litre = 3.38 ounces, but that is a fluid measurement.
if it were dry weight, then 1kg = 3.5274 ounces

I thought 1 kg was equal to about 2.2 pounds ?
having a litre be both a liquids and dry unit is tough. Probably why
us Americans have such a hard time with SI units. Having a litre be
two different types of measures, dry volume and liquid but having the
same name for each makes it hard to know what we are doing.

I mean how many ounces would it be and is that dry ounces or liquid
ounces ?

I think one reason the transistion is because of the few things that
cross between volumes and weights.

Regardless, if the main ingredient is silver, then the cost will be
PDH.

and personally, I feel sorry for the bloke who has to convert the
troy weight of silver to ounces to litres to kg ! No wonder the cost
is so high !

Dave

(not sure if it is liter or litre ? )

> OK, so 1 kg = 1 litre,

only water, specific gravity (density) = 1 kg/liter.

> so 0.1 kg = 0.1 litre
>
> 0.1 litre = 3.38 ounces, but that is a fluid measurement.
> if it were dry weight, then 1kg = 3.5274 ounces
>
> I thought 1 kg was equal to about 2.2 pounds ?

yes, that's about true.

> having a litre be both a liquids and dry unit is tough.

it's a volume.

one liter water (specific gravity == 1kg/dm^2)
has a mass of 1 kg. (at some very exact physical conditions).
this one liter will weigh 9,81N somewhere on earth, and zero N in space.
(but it will still be 1 liter.). the scales on earth are calibrated to
display
the mass (in kg or something, not N).

The liter is a unit of volume, 1 liter beeing 1 cubic decimeter, or 1000
cubic
centimeters, or 1000 000 cubic millimeters, or 0,001 cubic meters.

If you fill a "liter" of flour in a bottle with one liter volume
or a liter water doesn't matter. the flour is compressible so the mass
will change.

The liter is usually only used with liquid things, but it IS a voloume
measurement and thus may also be used for other stuff if you insist.

> Probably why
> us Americans have such a hard time with SI units. Having a litre be
> two different types of measures, dry volume and liquid but having the
> same name for each makes it hard to know what we are doing.
>

We do not use the liter for any non-fluid stuff.

> I mean how many ounces would it be and is that dry ounces or liquid
> ounces ?

I don't know what ounces are, and i don't know the difference between dry
and liquid ones.
to make any sense there shouldn't be a difference in my opinion.

>
> I think one reason the transistion is because of the few things that
> cross between volumes and weights.

volumes and mass are linked by specific gravity (density). density =
mass/volume.
Weight is the force you get when you accelerate mass, nothing more.
on earth it is about 9,81m/s^2, (on poles a bit more i think).
There is no cross between volume and weight, there is a relationship,
nothing more.
The problem is much more that all scales display mass, but they "weigh"
stuff.
(they measure the force of gravity pulling the item down).

In daily life you won't need to know about the "weight force" of anything,
you use the mass and trust that all scales are calibrated correctly and
you don't move away from the earth's surface.

>
> Regardless, if the main ingredient is silver, then the cost will be
> PDH.

yes... but i think the s.g. of silver is about 10,
so even if in this 0.1kg (100g) is 100% silver you get 10ml.
most likely it will NOT be 100% silver, and with the other ingredients
most likely beeing around s.g. 1 it must be between 100ml and 10ml.

> and personally, I feel sorry for the bloke who has to convert the
> troy weight of silver to ounces to litres to kg ! No wonder the cost
> is so high !

I don't care about this bloke. He ought to learn SI and have a easier life.

>
> Dave
>
> (not sure if it is liter or litre ? )
>
>

You are american(?), so you can write liter.
if you were british you would need to write litre.
(In german it is liter and i won't use the british spelling for sure.)

> > conductive ink from Precisa, which is $52 for 0.1
> Kg (smallest order).

Has anyone read the spec sheet(s) for the various
conductive inks? Things may have changed, but 2 years
ago when I looked into it, conductive ink traces had
to be a certain width (For the most part, much larger
than what I'd want to lay out onto a board) and could
not exceed a certain length. Also, there was a limit
on the number of traces, via's and ect...

Conductive inks were, at that time (Two years ago)
designed to provide small, specific solutions to
unique problems in pcb manufacture.

Best

Marvin Dickens

=====
Registered Linux User No. 80253
If you use linux, get counted at:
http://www.linuxcounter.org




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

> I don't know what ounces are, and i don't know the difference

between dry and liquid ones. to make any sense there shouldn't be a
difference in my opinion.

SENSE ? you want to make sence out of this ? you, sir, are a better
man than I !


Ounces are one of our favorite units. we use them to measure
liquid. A shot glass of Vodka is about 1 ounce liquid.

or weight, A postal letter under 1 ounce gets one stamp.

A large soda is about 32 ounces, or about one liter.

A loaf of bread is about 16 ounces, or just less than half a kilogram.

It can be argued that whomever came up with the term did not have one
ounce of sense!

Dave






Dave

I tried desperately to find out the factor for converting
ounces to liters and kg, but i didn't get any result.

the values vary from about 20g/ounce to above 30, there are hundreds
of different ounces, (av, troy), and UK and US, i'm confused and will
probably
never know the differnce between fluid and dry ounces.
I have this conversion poster on the wall.
the stupid thing does only say 1 gill = 5 fluid ounce
and 1 fluid ounce is 8 fluid drachm. this is one dead end.
the poster further says "1 fluid ounce = 28,4cm^3"
and a few lines below it says " 1 fluid ounce = 29,6cm^3".
It is a very stupid poster, i have ripped it off and trashed it.
It hangs there for maybe 5 years and i never got a single useful conversion
out of it. I think the difference may be between UK and US. (Strange
that there is a difference, maybe the sailors have drunken some of it..)


1 fluid ounce water, how much does it weigh? 1 dry ounce?

> SENSE ? you want to make sence out of this ? you, sir, are a better
> man than I !

At least there must be reason, if there is no sense.

> Ounces are one of our favorite units. we use them to measure
> liquid. A shot glass of Vodka is about 1 ounce liquid.
>
> or weight, A postal letter under 1 ounce gets one stamp.
>
> A large soda is about 32 ounces, or about one liter.

That's a huge soda, you get that at a restaurant?
here a large soda is 0,5liter (will weight about a pound without the
glass).

>
> A loaf of bread is about 16 ounces, or just less than half a kilogram.

Well, loafes of bread are usually 1kg here, but you get them cut in half
too.
'course there are smaller ones and bigger ones..

(--> seems you guys drink more and eat less ;-) )

> It can be argued that whomever came up with the term did not have one
> ounce of sense!

fluid or dry?

ST

In article <opr7os4hjoooawdc@...>,
Stefan Trethan <stefan_trethan@...> wrote:

> I tried desperately to find out the factor for converting
> ounces to liters and kg, but i didn't get any result.

Weights and measures are very confusing and that is largely due to
historical reasons. I think at one time even different counties within the
uk had different measures, they certainly kept their own "standards" and
until the coming of the railways had their own time.

There are certainly differences between the uk and the US. I believe they
kept hold of the measures the settlers took with them whereas the uk, in
standardising things, changed. I believe the US gallon is the same size as
what used to be known as "the Queen Anne gallon" in the uk.

Now what you probably need to know is that, in current uk measure:

there are 16 ounces weight (Avoirdupois - blame the French) to the pound
and one pound = 453.592g

There are 20 fluid ounces to the pint and a pint is 0.568 261 litre

Also "a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter" (Standard rhyme which
used to be memorised by all school children) so 20 fluid ounces of water
(1 pint) weighs 16 ounces Av.

Hope this helps

Stuart

> Also "a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter" (Standard rhyme which
> used to be memorised by all school children) so 20 fluid ounces of water
> (1 pint) weighs 16 ounces Av.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Stuart
>
>

and when you say " 5 ounces of some non-liquid stuff" what do you mean
then, always
av or troy?
what does the uk guy mean?

ST

> > SENSE ? you want to make sence out of this ? you, sir, are a

better

> > man than I !
>
> At least there must be reason, if there is no sense.

At this point I would offer that I have never found the sense or
reason behind most of the measurements. a foot may have been from
teh size of the foot of a king at some time, but inches ?

Or the liquids ounces, pints, quarts.... all I know is that I can
easily drink a pint, a quart talks a little longer.

> > A large soda is about 32 ounces, or about one liter.
>
> That's a huge soda, you get that at a restaurant?
> here a large soda is 0,5liter (will weight about a pound without

the

> glass).

A 'normal' 'cup' of coffee would be 8 ounces fluid, 8 ounces = one
cup as cup is a measurement term.

a large coffee was 12 ounces at one time. and then it was 16 ounces
and now is 20 ounces. Probably because our car ride to work is
longer. but, remember if you drink 20 ounces of coffee in the car,
you run into the building !

20 ounces is about 568 ml so you can imagine it is a LARGE coffee.

for soda we START at 16 ounces for a small.
medium is 22 fluid ounces (650ml)
a large is 32 fluid oz (946ml)
a KING is 42 oz ( 1.24L) 44oz at some stores
and a DoubleGulp is 64 fluid oz (1.89L)

I expect that this summer one store will try to out-do another and
sell something even larger.

and YES, that is ONE serving and one soda for one person at one meal.
and YES we drink TOO much ! oh, and yes, people actually do drink the
whole thing.


Dave

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Trethan
<stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:

>
> > Also "a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter" (Standard

rhyme which

> > used to be memorised by all school children) so 20 fluid ounces

of water

> > (1 pint) weighs 16 ounces Av.
> >
> > Hope this helps
> >
> > Stuart
> >
> >
>
> and when you say " 5 ounces of some non-liquid stuff" what do you

mean

> then, always
> av or troy?
> what does the uk guy mean?

ounces are always Av unless you are specifically takling jewelry or
precicous metals, and then someone always mentions TROY.


odd thing is that probably 98% of Americans don't know what av is and
less can prounounce it.

Dave

>
> ST

> At this point I would offer that I have never found the sense or
> reason behind most of the measurements. a foot may have been from
> teh size of the foot of a king at some time, but inches ?

a dozen inches makes a foot i guess...
people liked the dozen dearly in the past.


ST

In article <c7in23+fdhj@...>,
Dave Mucha <dave_mucha@...> wrote:

> OK, so 1 kg = 1 litre, so 0.1 kg = 0.1 litre

> 0.1 litre = 3.38 ounces, but that is a fluid measurement.
> if it were dry weight, then 1kg = 3.5274 ounces

> I thought 1 kg was equal to about 2.2 pounds ?

Yes

> having a litre be both a liquids and dry unit is tough. Probably why
> us Americans have such a hard time with SI units. Having a litre be
> two different types of measures, dry volume and liquid but having the
> same name for each makes it hard to know what we are doing.

The important thing to remember is that a litre is a measure of volume and
/never/ anything else and a kg is always weight. It's less confusing than
ounces which can be either.

You can measure water, custard powder, and propane all in litres but it
would be the volume of such you would be talking about.

Equally you measure all the above in kg and it would be the weights you
would be talking about.

(Of course they still measure oil in "barrels" which is bizzare)

I'm old enough to remember when the uk was exclusively imperial and for
many things think in imperial. Metric was the measurement for science so
in the science lab I measured things in gramms but weighed my potatoes (so
to speak) in lb!

I use litres for measuring liquids for etching but buy my beer in pints!

Only thing confuses me now is loudspeaker cabinet volumes are now measured
in litres instead of cubic feet. I can only visualise the size of a
loudspeaker by converting litres to gallons, gallons to cubic feet and
then saying to myself "Oh that box would be about 18inches 9inches by
2foot"

Stuart

> odd thing is that probably 98% of Americans don't know what av is and
> less can prounounce it.

Are you refering to Avoir du Pois? pronounced "avwaar du pwa"? Or
literally have some peas?

But then I moved here (Florida) at age 23, the real confusion comes at
the pint level, an american (federal) pint is 16 fluid oz, a british
(imperial) pint is 20 fluid oz. the gallon is the same number of pints
(8) but as the base unit is different, a federal gallon is 3.8 liters,
where a imperial gallon is 4.5 litres.

Always gets me when they use _volume_ to measure _weight_ ie. one cup of
sugar.

Not only is the Large 32oz or so, but if you eat in, you get free
refills on it too, so you eat your meal and drink 2-3 quarts of soda!

--
Anthony Toft <toftat@...>

Something isn't quite right here ...

> Also "a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter" (Standard rhyme

which

> used to be memorised by all school children) so 20 fluid ounces of

water

> (1 pint) weighs 16 ounces Av.

If a pint of water weighs 16 ounces and that is a pound and a quarter, a
pound must equal 12.8 ounces. According to my conversion program:

1 UK pint = 20 UK fluid ounces
1 US pint = 16 US fluid ounces

1 UK pint = 1.2 US pint

1 pound = 16 ounces

Now, "a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter" ... a pound and a
quarter is 20 ounces and, a UK pint is 20 fluid ounces ... ! ... ?

Using the conversion program again:

1 UK fluid ounce = 0.02841307 liters

1 US fluid ounce = 0.02957353 liters

and

1 ounce = 0.02834952 kilograms

so, assuming that 1 liter of water weights 1 kilogram, one UK fluid
ounce will weigh about 1 ounce!

Am I missing something?

Taking things a little further than in my last email ...

Using my conversion program and assuming 1 liter of water weighs 1
kilogram:

1 US fluid ounce of water will weight 1.043174 ounces.

1 UK fluid ounce of water will weigh 1.00224 ounces.

By "definition" (see below) a liter of water (at a certain temperature
and pressure) weighs 1 kilogram. At a higher temperature 1 UK fluid
ounce will weigh 1 ounce!

From http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/litre:

"A kilogram of pure water at a temperature of 4 °Celsius and standard
atmospheric pressure occupies approximately 1 litre of space.

"In the past, this was used to define the kilogram, but not anymore,
partially because the volume depends ever-so-slightly on the pressure,
and pressure units include mass as a factor, introducing a circular
dependency in the definition of the kilogram."

On Saturday 08 May 2004 12:35 pm, Stefan Trethan wrote:

> and when you say " 5 ounces of some non-liquid stuff" what do you mean
> then, always av or troy?
> what does the uk guy mean?

Dunno about UK, but most stuff on the store shelves here is marked either "NT
WT" (Net Weight), or "FL OZ" (fluid ounces), so it's pretty obvious what
they're talking about.

What bugs me is stuff that's sold by weight but used by volume, or vice
versa. This seems to be typical in cooking.

> What bugs me is stuff that's sold by weight but used by volume, or vice
> versa. This seems to be typical in cooking.
>

That's because they never can sell this stuff by volume.
If you do the experiment you will notice that using volume on powders
is about the same precision as "use some flour".
Using volume in the kitchen is US-specific, many cooks complain
that you can never ever reproduce a recepie with the volumetric
measurements.

ST

On Saturday 08 May 2004 12:44 pm, Dave Mucha wrote:

> > > SENSE ? you want to make sence out of this ? you, sir, are a
> > > better man than I !

> > At least there must be reason, if there is no sense.

> At this point I would offer that I have never found the sense or reason
> behind most of the measurements. a foot may have been from
> teh size of the foot of a king at some time,

Mine's about that size, roughly.

> but inches ?

The width of my thumb.

> Or the liquids ounces, pints, quarts.... all I know is that I can
> easily drink a pint, a quart talks a little longer.

Yeah, and by the time you're done, if you're talking beer, it's gone warm
on you.

> > > A large soda is about 32 ounces, or about one liter.

> > That's a huge soda, you get that at a restaurant?

There seems to be a trend over the years with beverages getting bigger. When
I was a kid, a typical bottle of soda was 12 ounces, except for the little
Cokes, which were about 6-1//2 ounces. More recently the bottles went to
16, then 20 -- for individual drinks. The bigger sizes, including 32 and
44 ounce cups -- are typically sold at places where you have fountain soda
and where you'd also load them up with ice, so it's not all beverage.

Glasses for people to have at home seem to be getting bigger as well. A
"glass" is specified in an old bartender's guide I have as being 8 oz. Try
and find any these days, they're all bigger.

> > here a large soda is 0,5liter (will weight about a pound without
> > the glass).

> A 'normal' 'cup' of coffee would be 8 ounces fluid, 8 ounces = one
> cup as cup is a measurement term.

Which is further confused by the mfrs of coffee makers using a 5 oz. "cup" as
a measure. I never could figure out for the longest time why it was that a
"10 cup" or "12 cup" maker didn't ever seem to make that many, until I found
this out.

> a large coffee was 12 ounces at one time. and then it was 16 ounces
> and now is 20 ounces. Probably because our car ride to work is
> longer. but, remember if you drink 20 ounces of coffee in the car,
> you run into the building !

My "cup" is actually a "mug" and usually two or three of those is enough to
get me going in the morning...

> 20 ounces is about 568 ml so you can imagine it is a LARGE coffee.
>
> for soda we START at 16 ounces for a small.
> medium is 22 fluid ounces (650ml)
> a large is 32 fluid oz (946ml)
> a KING is 42 oz ( 1.24L) 44oz at some stores
> and a DoubleGulp is 64 fluid oz (1.89L)

I haven't seen them that big yet.

> I expect that this summer one store will try to out-do another and
> sell something even larger.

And they'll keep at it as long as people buy into it. Which is the part I
can't figure out, why would they?

> and YES, that is ONE serving and one soda for one person at one meal.
> and YES we drink TOO much ! oh, and yes, people actually do drink the
> whole thing.

I've also seen people walking around with "jugs" of iced tea, usually the
kind that's loaded up with sugar (and which makes _me_ more thirstly,
usually), a half gallon or even a gallon, for themselves. More often than
not these are fairly "large" people...

On Saturday 08 May 2004 12:56 pm, Stefan Trethan wrote:

> a dozen inches makes a foot i guess...
> people liked the dozen dearly in the past.

It's a matter of convenience for math, too. Twelve can be divided by 2, 3,
4, or 6, while 10 can only be divided by 2 or 5. I think that this is also
part of the reason why we have 360 degrees in a circle, because it can be
divided up so many different ways.

> > and a DoubleGulp is 64 fluid oz (1.89L)
>
> I haven't seen them that big yet.

the 7-11 stores sell the DoubleGulp in 64 fluid ounces.

> > I expect that this summer one store will try to out-do another and
> > sell something even larger.
>
> And they'll keep at it as long as people buy into it. Which is the

part I

> can't figure out, why would they?

The cost is the thing. a small sells for 79 cents a medium for 89 a
large for 99 and an extra large often is on sale for 99 cents.

so you pay more for sugar water and feel like you are getting a
bargan.

funny how soda costs more than gasoline for your car.

Dave

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Roy J. Tellason"
<rtellason@b...> wrote:

> On Saturday 08 May 2004 12:56 pm, Stefan Trethan wrote:
>
> > a dozen inches makes a foot i guess...
> > people liked the dozen dearly in the past.
>
> It's a matter of convenience for math, too. Twelve can be divided

by 2, 3,

> 4, or 6, while 10 can only be divided by 2 or 5. I think that

this is also

> part of the reason why we have 360 degrees in a circle, because it

can be

> divided up so many different ways.

I can see this.

get a dozen rolls and you can evenly feed a bunch of people. no one
feels left out.

and then of course there is the bakers dozen which is 13.

Dave

On May 8, 2004, at 2:23 PM, Dave Mucha wrote:

> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Roy J. Tellason"
> <rtellason@b...> wrote:
>> On Saturday 08 May 2004 12:56 pm, Stefan Trethan wrote:
>>
>>> a dozen inches makes a foot i guess...
>>> people liked the dozen dearly in the past.
>>
>> It's a matter of convenience for math, too. Twelve can be divided
> by 2, 3,
>> 4, or 6, while 10 can only be divided by 2 or 5. I think that
> this is also
>> part of the reason why we have 360 degrees in a circle, because it
> can be
>> divided up so many different ways.
>
> I can see this.
>
> get a dozen rolls and you can evenly feed a bunch of people. no one
> feels left out.
>
> and then of course there is the bakers dozen which is 13.
>
> Dave

The baker's dozen comes from way back in the days of funny (and often
ridiculous) taxation. Baker's were required to produce loaves of a
certain weight each, and if they loaves were too small, the baker got
fined. Since loaves were packaged in bags of 12, the person checking
the weights would just throw the bag on the scale, divide by 12 and use
that number to assess any necessary fines. Bakers got sick of being
fined, so they started throwing an extra loaf in the bag to be sure it
would come out above the required weight.

At least, that's what my grandfather told me. He was a baker. I figure
he knows what he's talking about. I believe it's also the source of the
"one for good measure" colloquialism.

-- James

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, James Sinclair
<yahoo_groups@n...> wrote:

> On May 8, 2004, at 2:23 PM, Dave Mucha wrote:
> > --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Roy J. Tellason"
> > <rtellason@b...> wrote:
> >> On Saturday 08 May 2004 12:56 pm, Stefan Trethan wrote:
> >>
> >>> a dozen inches makes a foot i guess...
> >>> people liked the dozen dearly in the past.
> >>
> >> It's a matter of convenience for math, too. Twelve can be

divided

> > by 2, 3,
> >> 4, or 6, while 10 can only be divided by 2 or 5. I think that
> > this is also
> >> part of the reason why we have 360 degrees in a circle, because

it

> > can be
> >> divided up so many different ways.
> >
> > I can see this.
> >
> > get a dozen rolls and you can evenly feed a bunch of people. no

one

> > feels left out.
> >
> > and then of course there is the bakers dozen which is 13.
> >
> > Dave
>
> The baker's dozen comes from way back in the days of funny (and

often

> ridiculous) taxation. Baker's were required to produce loaves of a
> certain weight each, and if they loaves were too small, the baker

got

> fined. Since loaves were packaged in bags of 12, the person

checking

> the weights would just throw the bag on the scale, divide by 12 and

use

> that number to assess any necessary fines. Bakers got sick of being
> fined, so they started throwing an extra loaf in the bag to be sure

it

> would come out above the required weight.
>
> At least, that's what my grandfather told me. He was a baker. I

figure

> he knows what he's talking about. I believe it's also the source of

the

> "one for good measure" colloquialism.
>
> -- James

here and I thought it was so I could eat a donut on the way home and
still have two for everybody !

Dave

On Saturday 08 May 2004 04:21 pm, Dave Mucha wrote:

> > > and a DoubleGulp is 64 fluid oz (1.89L)
> >
> > I haven't seen them that big yet.
>
> the 7-11 stores sell the DoubleGulp in 64 fluid ounces.

We don't have all that many of those around here...

> > > I expect that this summer one store will try to out-do another and
> > > sell something even larger.

> > And they'll keep at it as long as people buy into it. Which is the
> > part I can't figure out, why would they?

> The cost is the thing. a small sells for 79 cents a medium for 89 a
> large for 99 and an extra large often is on sale for 99 cents.

Uh huh. Well, I don't have a drink holder in my car big enough for one of
those "buckets" anyhow, and don't feel like having to hold it all the time
I'm driving.

> so you pay more for sugar water and feel like you are getting a bargan.
>
> funny how soda costs more than gasoline for your car.

With the way gas prices are jumping lately, I'm not so sure it's gonna stay
that way. Today I paid the most I _ever_ paid for gas... :-(

In article <004e01c43522$035d8fc0$6400a8c0@NikNote>,
Julian Nikadie <j@...> wrote:

> Something isn't quite right here ...

> > Also "a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter" (Standard rhyme
> which
> > used to be memorised by all school children) so 20 fluid ounces of
> water
> > (1 pint) weighs 16 ounces Av.

> If a pint of water weighs 16 ounces and that is a pound and a quarter, a
> pound must equal 12.8 ounces. According to my conversion program:

<SNIP>

> Am I missing something?

No. I am a Numpty!

Comes of trying to do arithmatic in the head whilst being spoken to by
wife and realising I was about to be late for an appointment!

A pound and a quarter is 16*1.25 = 20 oz AV
so as you rightly say 1 floz of water weighs 1oz.

Stuart.

> The cost is the thing. a small sells for 79 cents a medium for 89 a
> large for 99 and an extra large often is on sale for 99 cents.
>
> so you pay more for sugar water and feel like you are getting a
> bargan.
>
> funny how soda costs more than gasoline for your car.
>
> Dave
>

believe me, you have no reason whatsoever to complain about prices...

you get only half the stuff here for the same cash...


st

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Trethan
<stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:

>
> > The cost is the thing. a small sells for 79 cents a medium for

89 a

> > large for 99 and an extra large often is on sale for 99 cents.
> >
> > so you pay more for sugar water and feel like you are getting a
> > bargan.
> >
> > funny how soda costs more than gasoline for your car.
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
> believe me, you have no reason whatsoever to complain about

prices...

>
> you get only half the stuff here for the same cash...
>
>
> st

Hi Stefan,

I am one who rejoyces in the overabundance and low costs of our toys.

Our government makes it sound like we are on the edge of a disaster,
but I think that is so people are afraid and want to keep the
govenrment there to 'protect us'

I think it is the other way around. if we had less regualtions, we
would have better everything ! lower prices and cleaner air. More
things available and better relations with our neighbors !

but, as it stands, we get more variety of chips than probably anyone
else in the world, soda that costs less than probably anywhere else,
gasoline that costs less. I just bought 10 8x12 PCB boards for $2.00
each 1/16 thick, but they are CEM-1 not FR-4. regardless, that is
still 1/4 the price of new.

But, when you have the choice of getting 3 times more soda (and ice)
for 20 cents, you take it.

Dave