How long should caliper brake springs last?

On 8/10/2017 9:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2017 8:47 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:48:47 -0500, AMuzi
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 10:47 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 08:53:45 +0700, John B
wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:

You can buy "moonshine" branded products in liquor
stores, packaged in
canning jars and all. I've never tasted it.

:-) I have :-) and "corn whiskey" as usually sold by
bootleggers is
not that flavorful, in fact it has, as mentioned by the
supreme court,
no socially redeeming qualities, but on the other hand
it is cheap
and, if you know your source, probably 50% or more
alcohol.

Well, the purpose might not be the taste experience.
Knowing next to
nothing about moonshine I looked around on the web this
afternoon, which
has resulted in my probably knowing less than nothing
now. It sounds
like a fair amount of moonshine is made from a sugar
base rather than a
grain base; when grain is used, seems like corn (maize)
is the usual
staple. Frank mentioned poitin (Irish moonshine,
pronounced
"puh-cheen") which unsurprisingly is often made from
potatos; there are
commercial versions stocked at the local liquor store
but I've never
tried them. Other than a few selected whiskeys and
occasionally aquavit
(my wife's family is Danish), liquor holds little
interest for me; I
prefer beer or wine as a beverage. Don't like cocktails.

But then single malt scotch, right out of the still, is
also pretty
retched stuff :-) -- Cheers,

Most all the distilled alcohols are that way, until they
are aged and
flavored with barrel aging like the whiskeys, decoctions
like gin and
aquavit, etc. I have no idea what happens with vodka,
if there is any
aging benefit for the non-flavored versions. I have
read that virtually
all of the vodkas sold in the US come from one of two
sources- Archer
Daniels Midland and another big agrabusinessthat I can't
remember
offhand. They are the biggest distillers in the country
and sell the
stuff by the tanker load to be bottled and packaged for
very profitable
resale at various price points. $15 a bottle or $100 a
bottle, the odds
are pretty good it's the same vodka.


I have actually made corm whiskey. It's an amazingly slow
and tedious[1] process with a shortbed pickup of corn
yielding less than one pint[2] and there's the cost of sugar
as well. Once was plenty.

To make growing corn and selling alcohol a paying
proposition would require either a huge capital investment
or a very low value for one's labor.

[1]Machinery would probably make shucking/shelling/mashing
faster.
[2]I make no claim of expertise or efficiency. Since the
boiling point of methanol is only slightly higher than
ethanol, the prudent fellow will quit while still ahead.

Originally it was probably something that a farmer did in
the fall,
but I think there was something wrong with either your
formula or the
way you malted the corn. I can't say for corn but barley
is about 2
gallons of alcohol per bushel of grain.

I wonder about that low yield, too, although I'm not into
moonshine at all.

I know that the first settlers west of the Appalachian
mountains had intense trouble getting any of their grain to
markets back east. So they got into the practice of
distilling, since whiskey made more sense to ship east. It
had a much higher value per pound or per barrel. They used
it in barter, too.

Trouble was, the new federal government needed cash, so they
decided to tax the heck out of the moonshine. The settlers
rebelled (justifiably, I think) and Washington sent American
troops against American settlers to put down the "Whiskey
Rebellion."

If the settlers could get only a pint out of a wagon load of
corn, I doubt all that would have happened.



I'm sure improvements could be achieved.

My neighbor's girlfriend had rented a garden plot but moved
out before the snow melted so he planted his section with
corn. After chatting up a guy at work he was motivated to
make moonshine and I was drafted to help. Neither of us had
any special knowledge and although it was a debacle the
passage of time makes it amusing now. That was in 1975.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 6:15:40 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

My neighbor's girlfriend had rented a garden plot but moved
out before the snow melted so he planted his section with
corn. After chatting up a guy at work he was motivated to
make moonshine and I was drafted to help. Neither of us had
any special knowledge and although it was a debacle the
passage of time makes it amusing now. That was in 1975.

And you still haven't sobered up.

AMuzi writes:

On 8/10/2017 6:15 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

[ ... ]

One popular route for medical administration is the dermal patch. A
postage stamp sized thing that can send a person from groaning in pain
to completely lit up just by sticking it on the skin.


Guys boil those 'safe time release' patches in a spoon for injection.

I don't doubt it. I've known several that used them in a medical
context, and it's impressive how they work even when used as directed.

--

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:15:30 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
Tim McNamara writes:

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 22:39:36 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Many, perhaps most people who use opiods are addicts, which means that
they regularly use a drug just to feel normal.

Professionally I have been dealing with the opioid epidemic for damn
near 20 years. It only became a recent crisis when nice middle class
white folks started turning to heroin out in the suburbs. As long as
the primary victims were poor and/or non-white, nobody really gave much
of a crap at the policy level. Once it hit the likely voter pool, then
the narrative changed.

Sorry, a bit cynical these days.

Not wrong, but the proposed solution for those poor addicts would have
been even more stop and frisk, longer prison terms, &c. Probably just
as well not to have the publicity.

Saying that "most people who use opioids are addicts" is a gross
generalization and is simply not true. However, these are all highly
addictive drugs- from codeine to fentanyl and heroin, etc.- and starting
to use them at all carries a risk of addiction. It is simply the
biology of the drugs in the human body and few people are immune to the
potential. If you take a single first dose of oxycodone today, there is
a measurable risk that a year from now you will still be taking it (my
recollection is that the risk is about 6%). Take it for a week and the
risk is higher; take it for a month and the risk is higher; take if for
a year and the risk of addiction is higher still.

I was sloppy and imprecise. If you ask, out of all the individuals that
have taken at least one non-medical opioid dose in the past year, how
many are addicts, then you're certainly right in that most of them are
not. On the other hand, if you ask about the past *day*, then most of
them are. Equivalently, you could take the marketing perspective and
ask out of all the doses consumed how many are taken by addicts, and I
suspect that most of them are.

Opioids are IMHO more addictive than alcohol, perhaps a bit less
addictive than nicotine (BTW, to my observation over 36 years of working
in mental health, the "gateway drugs" are cigarettes, whatever's in
mommy and daddy's medicine cabinet and alcohol. Roughly in that order.
Usually by the time people get to trying marijuana, they are already on
the substance abuse train. That said, marijuana is *not* a benign,
no-harm drug even if less damaging than others) and maybe on par with
meth and cocaine (especially crack cocaine).

Really? Methamphetamine on a par with cannabis? I find that a little
hard to square both with what I have read and what I have seen.

It's demonstrably wrong. http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.co...ve-substances/ http://www.healthline.com/health-new...ut-real-072014


The LD50 for marijuana is 1,500 pounds in fifteen minutes. https://weedpress.wordpress.com/scie...0-of-cannabis/

I don't think even Cheech and Chong could smoke that much in 15 minutes. You would have to torch a warehouse to smoke that much dope. In contrast, LD50 for alcohol is 13 shots, one after the other.

I agree though that marijuana is not without consequence.

-- Jay Beattie.

jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:15:30 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
Tim McNamara writes:

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 22:39:36 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Many, perhaps most people who use opiods are addicts, which means that
they regularly use a drug just to feel normal.

Professionally I have been dealing with the opioid epidemic for damn
near 20 years. It only became a recent crisis when nice middle class
white folks started turning to heroin out in the suburbs. As long as
the primary victims were poor and/or non-white, nobody really gave much
of a crap at the policy level. Once it hit the likely voter pool, then
the narrative changed.

Sorry, a bit cynical these days.

Not wrong, but the proposed solution for those poor addicts would have
been even more stop and frisk, longer prison terms, &c. Probably just
as well not to have the publicity.

Saying that "most people who use opioids are addicts" is a gross
generalization and is simply not true. However, these are all highly
addictive drugs- from codeine to fentanyl and heroin, etc.- and starting
to use them at all carries a risk of addiction. It is simply the
biology of the drugs in the human body and few people are immune to the
potential. If you take a single first dose of oxycodone today, there is
a measurable risk that a year from now you will still be taking it (my
recollection is that the risk is about 6%). Take it for a week and the
risk is higher; take it for a month and the risk is higher; take if for
a year and the risk of addiction is higher still.

I was sloppy and imprecise. If you ask, out of all the individuals that
have taken at least one non-medical opioid dose in the past year, how
many are addicts, then you're certainly right in that most of them are
not. On the other hand, if you ask about the past *day*, then most of
them are. Equivalently, you could take the marketing perspective and
ask out of all the doses consumed how many are taken by addicts, and I
suspect that most of them are.

Opioids are IMHO more addictive than alcohol, perhaps a bit less
addictive than nicotine (BTW, to my observation over 36 years of working
in mental health, the "gateway drugs" are cigarettes, whatever's in
mommy and daddy's medicine cabinet and alcohol. Roughly in that order.
Usually by the time people get to trying marijuana, they are already on
the substance abuse train. That said, marijuana is *not* a benign,
no-harm drug even if less damaging than others) and maybe on par with
meth and cocaine (especially crack cocaine).

Really? Methamphetamine on a par with cannabis? I find that a little
hard to square both with what I have read and what I have seen.

It's demonstrably
wrong. http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.co...ve-substances/
http://www.healthline.com/health-new...ut-real-072014


The LD50 for marijuana is 1,500 pounds in fifteen
minutes. https://weedpress.wordpress.com/scie...0-of-cannabis/

I don't think even Cheech and Chong could smoke that much in 15
minutes. You would have to torch a warehouse to smoke that much
dope. In contrast, LD50 for alcohol is 13 shots, one after the other.

I agree though that marijuana is not without consequence.

It has been my observation that dope smokers make *much* better
housemates than speed freaks.
--

On 8/11/2017 2:34 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:


It has been my observation that dope smokers make *much* better
housemates than speed freaks.

You must hang out with a very odd crowd.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 8/11/2017 2:34 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:


It has been my observation that dope smokers make *much* better
housemates than speed freaks.

You must hang out with a very odd crowd.

Never felt the need to economize on lodgings? Good for you.

--

A recent article in the Economist (I read it on dead trees, probably
online somewhere),

dead trees? what is that? Looking...

Doug Landau writes:

A recent article in the Economist (I read it on dead trees, probably
online somewhere),

dead trees? what is that? Looking...

You know, those things they send you in the mail.

--