Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
them so I've included them in this new post.
http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
Rob
R.H. wrote:
> Some of the items in the unsolved
> set may have been correctly answered previously but I
> wasn't able to verify them so I've included them
> in this new post.
My one piece of insight to share on #471 is that if you look at the red
numbers, they are different by 4 or 5 from the adjacent red numbers.
With the exception of 9 and 0 (which are either 1 or 9 apart, depending
on how you look at it.)
My gut feeling is that this dial is for remapping the 0-9 digits such
that adjacent digits do not come out near each other in the remap,
maybe something like a grey code. The 20-tooth cog and the
microswitch-style rider look like something out of a phone
pulse-switching system, although what kind of stepper switch they might
control I still do not fathom.
Tim.
R.H. wrote:
> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
> them so I've included them in this new post.
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
Hi Rob...My guesses...
563 Is that a Galileo Thermometer Globe?
564 Saw Tooth Set
565 Art Deco (70's) mixer/blender
566 Cane Handle
567 WWI Ammo Belt
568 Crimping tool of some sort?
R.H. wrote:
> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
> them so I've included them in this new post.
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
568. Stanley spokeshave with handles that attach on ends or with one
upright. Came with flat and curved bases, and a fence. Can't remember
the number offhand.
John Martin
543: Seems like long ago an old timer pointed to one of those and said
it was a fencing tool. You looped the wire on one of the teeth and
levered it against whatever was handy to tighten the wire, and you
hammered staples with the hammerhead. How you held the wire tight while
you removed the puller and switched to the hammerhead is unclear.
447: I did get pictures of that last fall.
Well, I *took* some pictures. They didn't come out so good. I thought
there was enough light but there wasn't. I've been working on some of
them and if you want I can post the one or two that actually have
something to see on ABPW later this evening. I believe there's one
where you can clearly see this part as one piece of a one-man bucksaw.
I haven't talked about it because I'm embarassed about saying I was
going to take photos and then coming back with mostly pictures of a
black cat eating licorice in a cave at midnight.
Rich Grise wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 05:00:03 -0800, Tim Shoppa wrote:
> > My one piece of insight to share on #471 is that if you look at the red
> > numbers, they are different by 4 or 5 from the adjacent red numbers.
> > With the exception of 9 and 0 (which are either 1 or 9 apart, depending
> > on how you look at it.)
> >
> > My gut feeling is that this dial is for remapping the 0-9 digits such
> > that adjacent digits do not come out near each other in the remap,
> > maybe something like a grey code. The 20-tooth cog and the
> > microswitch-style rider look like something out of a phone
> > pulse-switching system, although what kind of stepper switch they might
> > control I still do not fathom.
> >
>
> Maybe from an "Enigma" coder/decoder circa WWII. I'm almost sure I've
> seen such a thing before - the 45 degree bevel on the back is a
> dead giveaway that it stuck out from some console, but I can't remember
> for the life of me where I've seen it.
I think it's more likely from a simple machine (not a "coder/decoder"
like an Enigma machine) that has to scatter sequential digits such that
the are not adjacent in the machine's operation. Don's suggestion of a
key-cutter might be close, but it would do the mapping because you
don't really want a key cut to pattern #4 to be close to a key cut to
#3 or #5 (replace "key" with whatever this thing does! I think
security/encryption is a bit of a red herring, it's probably something
more to do with mechanical tolerances and not cutting a strip of
something too thin or maybe something more like the utility of a hash
index in computing.)
I can't rule out it being from some sort of encryption device but the
mapping is so straightforward that it would provide zero real security
itself.
And the fact that there are twenty teeth on the cog and twenty digits
(two different colors) around the dial has to mean something, I just
don't know what! Going back to the "hash index" idea, maybe there are
ten useful doohinkeys in a machine, and they don't want to wear any out
in favor of others, so at each shift change they advance the dial one
and use that setting on the machine.
As to style, it's simplicity and lack of adornment suggests something
like a East European public telephone from the 50's. At the same time,
it looks like it was machined out of solid billet (aluminum? and really
thick housing!) and not cast as a mass-produced item would be.
As enigmatic as Gary Larson's "Cow Tools" :-).
http://www.salon.com/people/portfolio/1999/12/21/larson/older4.html
Tim.
Oleg Lego wrote:
> The Robert Bonomi entity posted thusly:
>
> >Would you believe "Carbon tetra-chloride"?
> >
> >It _does_ extinguish fires. But the gas it givesoff is rather dangerous.
>
> Minor trivia:
> Folks who made hats used to use 'carbon-tet', and it affected their
> brains. Hence the phrase "Mad as a hatter".
Actually it was the mercury that they used in hatmaking that affected
them.
566. A "Beauty and the Beast" edition of a candle holder ?
246. Tool box ? jewelry box ?
447. some tool to place or remove horse shoes ?
212. a square peg for matching square holes ?
244. it looks like a rope could be put around in the gap around the screw,
and screwing the bottom part would hold the rope in place.
better yet, an identical object like this one would have its loop fit in
the gap. It could make a strange chain.
In article <[email protected]>,
Rich Grise <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:04:52 -0500, Howard R Garner wrote:
>
>> R.H. wrote:
>>> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is
>new and the
>>> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the
>unsolved
>>> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able
>to verify
>>> them so I've included them in this new post.
>>>
>>> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>> 563 Old fire extingisher
>
>D'OH! Yes! Of course! That's where I've seen those things dangle! (I had
>guessed "something decorative, like a chandelier") It was so many decades
>ago, I definitely remember seeing them hanging in soft metal straps, but
>forgot entirely where I saw one, until just now, you triggered my memory -
>in my Grandma's attic!
>
>Except, I'd be more likely to categorize it as an early version of a
>"sprinkler"[1], not a whole extinguisher, unless it's full of halon or
>something. ;-)
Would you believe "Carbon tetra-chloride"?
It _does_ extinguish fires. But the gas it givesoff is rather dangerous.
Robert Bonomi:
>> Would you believe "Carbon tetra-chloride"?
>> It _does_ extinguish fires. But the gas it givesoff is rather dangerous.
Oleg Lego:
> Folks who made hats used to use 'carbon-tet', and it affected their
> brains. Hence the phrase "Mad as a hatter".
Nope. That was mercury, not carbon tet.
--
Mark Brader And as in nerdish thought he stood,
Toronto the Jargontalk, with awk and grep,
[email protected] Came geeking through the Cobol wood,
and edlin as it schlepped.
--Larry Colen (after Lewis Carroll)
In article <[email protected]>,
Oleg Lego <[email protected]> wrote:
>The Robert Bonomi entity posted thusly:
>
>>Would you believe "Carbon tetra-chloride"?
>>
>>It _does_ extinguish fires. But the gas it givesoff is rather dangerous.
>
>Minor trivia:
>Folks who made hats used to use 'carbon-tet', and it affected their
>brains. Hence the phrase "Mad as a hatter".
>
Sorry, but that's not quite correct.
The other 'common' use for carbon-tet was as a dry-cleaning fluid.
Hat-making used mercury in the making of the 'felt' from which many
types of hats are formed. (ranging from Stetsons, to Derbys. :)
Hatmakers _chewed_ (literally, as in 'masticated') the source
material, to soften it, prior to forming into final shapes.
The long-term effects of ingestion of low levels of mercury in
that work, did give rise to various forms of insanity.
The long-term effects of ingestion of low levels of mercury in
that work, did give rise to various forms of insanity.
Dan:
>>> I'm pretty sure just posting them to abpw puts them in the public
>>> domain :-) but you have my permission to use either of them as you like.
Brooks Moses:
>> Nope, it most definitely doesn't put them in the public domain! People
>> tend to act like it does sometimes, but that's only the "they won't find
>> out so they won't sue me" sort of public domain. :)
>>
>> (Well, sometimes it's more the "they probably don't mind, so they won't
>> sue me" sort of public domain, as in this case, I suppose.)
Don Nichols:
> Well ... if the photos are your *own* work, and you post them to
> an alt.binaries newsgroup with no restrictive notices, that is pretty
> much equivalent to putting them in the public domain.
No, sorry, Brooks has it right. If you want to put something in the
public domain, you have to do it explicitly, as below.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"
[email protected] | -- Lord Kelvin
My text in this article is in the public domain.
In article <[email protected]>,
DoN. Nichols <[email protected]> wrote:
>According to Brooks Moses <[email protected]>:
>> Dan wrote:
>> > On Sat 21 Jan 2006 07:20:56p, "R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in
>> > news:[email protected]:
>> >>Thanks, looks like you nailed this one, it appears to be the same
>> >>piece of hardware, if you don't mind I'll post one of the photos on my
>> >>site.
>> >
>> > Oh sure. I'm pretty sure just posting them to abpw puts them in
>the public
>> > domain :-) but you have my permission to use either of them as you like.
>>
>> Nope, it most definitely doesn't put them in the public domain! People
>> tend to act like it does sometimes, but that's only the "they won't find
>> out so they won't sue me" sort of public domain. :)
>>
>> (Well, sometimes it's more the "they probably don't mind, so they won't
>> sue me" sort of public domain, as in this case, I suppose.)
>
> Well ... if the photos are your *own* work, and you post them to
>an alt.binaries newsgroup with no restrictive notices, that is pretty
>much equivalent to putting them in the public domain.
FALSE TO FACT. 'once upon a time', (in the U.S.) it was true that if
you 'published' something *without* a copyright claim attached, that the
item was then in the public domain. Since the U.S adopted the "Berne
Convention", and modified it's copyright laws accordingly (in the 1980's),
this is no longer the case.
Copyright protection attaches *automatically*, with no need to ever
include any notice of such. If you don't _know_ the item is in the
public domain -- i.e. you have a disclaimer from the author to that
effect -- you are well-advised to proceed on the basis that there *is*
copyright on the work involved.
>
> However -- if you *don't* own the rights, that is a different
>matter. It is copyright infringement in aid of more copyright
>infringement. :-)
According to R.H. <[email protected]>:
>
> > 212) Hmmm ... can you measure the distance between the sides and the
> > top and bottom surfaces? It looks as though it is intended to
> > be a gauge block with a handle of some sort.
> >
> > Is it tapered, or is that an artifact of the camera?
>
> It's not tapered, though it does look like it is in the photo.
>
> > I would guess that it is quite close to 1.000" square.
>
> Just measured this tool, it's 15/16" square, you're probably right about it
> being a gauge, I couldn't find any similar ones to verify it, so I included
> it in the unsolved set.
O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
looks to be surface ground to dimension.
Are there any markings on it other than the end markings?
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
In article <[email protected]>,
DoN. Nichols <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well ... if the photos are your *own* work, and you post them to
> an alt.binaries newsgroup with no restrictive notices, that is pretty
> much equivalent to putting them in the public domain.
Wrong. You automatically own copyright to any original work you produce
unless you explicitly put that work into th epublic domain.
--
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof.
And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." - Former Canadian
Prime Minister Jean Chretien
According to Tim Shoppa <[email protected]>:
> Rich Grise wrote:
[ ... ]
> > Maybe from an "Enigma" coder/decoder circa WWII. I'm almost sure I've
> > seen such a thing before - the 45 degree bevel on the back is a
> > dead giveaway that it stuck out from some console, but I can't remember
> > for the life of me where I've seen it.
>
> I think it's more likely from a simple machine (not a "coder/decoder"
> like an Enigma machine) that has to scatter sequential digits such that
> the are not adjacent in the machine's operation. Don's suggestion of a
> key-cutter might be close, but it would do the mapping because you
> don't really want a key cut to pattern #4 to be close to a key cut to
> #3 or #5 (replace "key" with whatever this thing does! I think
> security/encryption is a bit of a red herring, it's probably something
> more to do with mechanical tolerances and not cutting a strip of
> something too thin or maybe something more like the utility of a hash
> index in computing.)
>
> I can't rule out it being from some sort of encryption device but the
> mapping is so straightforward that it would provide zero real security
> itself.
>
> And the fact that there are twenty teeth on the cog and twenty digits
> (two different colors) around the dial has to mean something, I just
> don't know what! Going back to the "hash index" idea, maybe there are
> ten useful doohinkeys in a machine, and they don't want to wear any out
> in favor of others, so at each shift change they advance the dial one
> and use that setting on the machine.
Note that when one of the digits on the dial is aligned with the
leftmost index mark (clearly white), the red digits are visible through
the holes. When one of the digits on the dial is aligned with the
rightmost index mark (darker -- perhaps red), the white digits are
visible instead.
The white digits are sequential, but in reverse order of the
ones on the dial, while the red digits are scattered.
Using the white index, you have ten possible substitution
patterns, depending on which dial digit is aligned with the index.
Using the darker (possibly red) index, you have ten other possible
substitution patterns.
Perhaps it is for something simple like obfuscating codes being
broadcast -- say from a controller to police cars via radio.
The roller is not part of a switch, but rather just a detent, to
hold the "dial" at its last setting.
The angled base suggests that it should be on a desktop or a
console top. It is too dark to tell whether it has some drilled and
tapped holes for mounting to the surface, or perhaps has a black felt
pad to simply make it sort of non-slip.
> As to style, it's simplicity and lack of adornment suggests something
> like a East European public telephone from the 50's. At the same time,
> it looks like it was machined out of solid billet (aluminum? and really
> thick housing!) and not cast as a mass-produced item would be.
Agreed -- but someone cared enough to do a nice job of engraving
the digits and anodize the various parts rather nicely.
> As enigmatic as Gary Larson's "Cow Tools" :-).
>
> http://www.salon.com/people/portfolio/1999/12/21/larson/older4.html
I like that one.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Hi
565 looks like an ice crusher from about 1960.
566 looks like a top piece for a walking stick,
but ir might be a bit small. Clearly a round
shaft ( 1/2 to 3/4 inch in diameter) fits into it.
Thanks
Roger Haar
******************************************
"R.H." wrote:
>
> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
> them so I've included them in this new post.
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
> Rob
"R.H." wrote:
>
> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
> them so I've included them in this new post.
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
> Rob
518 looks very much like a foundry worker's "floor rammer".
Tom
[email protected] wrote:
> 543: Seems like long ago an old timer pointed to one of those and said
> it was a fencing tool. You looped the wire on one of the teeth and
> levered it against whatever was handy to tighten the wire, and you
> hammered staples with the hammerhead. How you held the wire tight while
> you removed the puller and switched to the hammerhead is unclear.
That's not what I know as a "fencing tool", but it certainly looks like
it could be used for that.
The problem of tightening the wire and hammering in the staple at the
same time was one that happened with the fencing tool I know of, too.
What I remember doing was hammering the staple most of the way down over
the wire, and then pulling the wire tight and letting the staple do most
of the work of holding it there while I did the rest of the holding with
a gloved hand. Also, if you pull the wire tight in such a way that it
ends up wrapped partway around the fencepost, the friction against the
fencepost will help hold it tight.
Of course, I was about 12 at the time, so probably what happened more
often than not is that my father pulled the wire tight, and I used an
ordinary hammer to drive in the staple. :)
In any case, the hammerhead on a fencing tool of any sort is primarily
there for making occasionally repairs when you don't want to carry more
tools around; for actually building a fence, it makes a lot more sense
to use a proper hammer for the hammering.
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Doug Payne wrote:
> On 19/01/2006 11:29 AM, John Martin wrote:
>>>http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>>
>>568. Stanley spokeshave with handles that attach on ends or with one
>>upright. Came with flat and curved bases, and a fence. Can't remember
>>the number offhand.
>
> Good call. Stanley #67 "Universal".
You people should also be posting these answers as comments on the
puzzlephotos site, so the people who posted them can have the benefit of
your answers too!
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
"R.H." wrote:
>
> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
> them so I've included them in this new post.
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
> Rob
#564 is a Stearns saw set, possibly 103 or 104 model.
Tom
R.H. wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>543: Seems like long ago an old timer pointed to one of those and said
>>it was a fencing tool. You looped the wire on one of the teeth and
>>levered it against whatever was handy to tighten the wire, and you
>>hammered staples with the hammerhead.
>
> Sounds reasonable, though this tool doesn't look like it would be very
> comfortable to hold with a bare hand.
Since I haven't known anyone who built wire fences without wearing a
good set of leather gloves, I can't see as how that's a problem!
(They're on the side where your fingers go, not the side where your palm
goes, right?)
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Dan wrote:
> On Sat 21 Jan 2006 07:20:56p, "R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>>Thanks, looks like you nailed this one, it appears to be the same
>>piece of hardware, if you don't mind I'll post one of the photos on my
>>site.
>
> Oh sure. I'm pretty sure just posting them to abpw puts them in the public
> domain :-) but you have my permission to use either of them as you like.
Nope, it most definitely doesn't put them in the public domain! People
tend to act like it does sometimes, but that's only the "they won't find
out so they won't sue me" sort of public domain. :)
(Well, sometimes it's more the "they probably don't mind, so they won't
sue me" sort of public domain, as in this case, I suppose.)
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Barbara Bailey wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:11:45 +0000, [email protected] (DoN.
> Nichols) wrote:
>>According to R.H. <[email protected]>:
>>>Just measured this tool, it's 15/16" square, you're probably right about it
>>>being a gauge, I couldn't find any similar ones to verify it, so I included
>>>it in the unsolved set.
>>
>> O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
>>measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
>>looks to be surface ground to dimension.
>>
>>Are there any markings on it other than the end markings?
>
> DoN; is there anny possibility that it's a machinist's "masterpiece"
> (in the original sense--the piece produced to prove that he'd mastered
> some aspect of his training?) Do machinist apprentices still have to
> do such things?
It seems possible, I suppose, but it also seems remarkably simple for
such a thing. In the simplistic shop class I took in college, our
"masterpieces" had gear teeth and threads and suchlike on them, and I'd
imagine a real machinist would have something at least as complex.
(They were really more for giving us experience with the various tools
than for illustrating mastery, though.)
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
"R.H." wrote:
>
> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
> them so I've included them in this new post.
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
> Rob
566 Does it have a hole for a screw? I think it goes on the
handle end of a walking stick in case you want to use the handle
end as a weapon.
567 looks like the right half of an old rifle belt. The missing
left half would provice adjustment and hang other items, possibly a
bayonet and canteen.
436 looks like a device to test the hardness of a material of a
certain thickness. You raise a rod until the weight hits the top,
slide the material under the point, and drop the rod.
76 looks like a hummingbird nest to go in the stakehole of a pickup truck.
383 looks like a hammer for driving tacks in positions where a
regular hammer could not be swung.
According to Barbara Bailey <[email protected]>:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:44:16 -0800, Brooks Moses
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Barbara Bailey wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:11:45 +0000, [email protected] (DoN.
> >> Nichols) wrote:
[ ... ]
> >>> O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
> >>>measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
> >>>looks to be surface ground to dimension.
> >>>
> >>>Are there any markings on it other than the end markings?
> >>
> >> DoN; is there anny possibility that it's a machinist's "masterpiece"
> >> (in the original sense--the piece produced to prove that he'd mastered
> >> some aspect of his training?) Do machinist apprentices still have to
> >> do such things?
As others have answered -- I don't think so. That is designed
for use, not show, and the turned section is intended as a handle to get
it to where it would be used.
> >It seems possible, I suppose, but it also seems remarkably simple for
> >such a thing. In the simplistic shop class I took in college, our
> >"masterpieces" had gear teeth and threads and suchlike on them, and I'd
> >imagine a real machinist would have something at least as complex.
> >
> >(They were really more for giving us experience with the various tools
> >than for illustrating mastery, though.)
> >
> >- Brooks
>
> The reason I asked is that my husband has mentioned that when he was
> apprenticing at a machinist's, he had to make a 1" cube to some
> incredibly fine tolerence before he was allowed to move on to the next
> step. So, not a final masterpiece really, but a 'proof of competence
> in this aspect' piece?
IIRC, (though I have never been an apprentice), the cube had to
be made by filing to fit a square hole -- and it had to be a precise fit
though it in all orientations. I forget whether the apprentice's master
would supply the square hole, or whether the apprentice had to make that
as well.
This item looks to have been made slightly oversized, stamped on
the end to mark it, hardened, and surface ground to final dimensions.
Is your husband still with us? If so, perhaps you could ask his
opinion on the matter.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
According to Brooks Moses <[email protected]>:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Sat 21 Jan 2006 07:20:56p, "R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >>Thanks, looks like you nailed this one, it appears to be the same
> >>piece of hardware, if you don't mind I'll post one of the photos on my
> >>site.
> >
> > Oh sure. I'm pretty sure just posting them to abpw puts them in the public
> > domain :-) but you have my permission to use either of them as you like.
>
> Nope, it most definitely doesn't put them in the public domain! People
> tend to act like it does sometimes, but that's only the "they won't find
> out so they won't sue me" sort of public domain. :)
>
> (Well, sometimes it's more the "they probably don't mind, so they won't
> sue me" sort of public domain, as in this case, I suppose.)
Well ... if the photos are your *own* work, and you post them to
an alt.binaries newsgroup with no restrictive notices, that is pretty
much equivalent to putting them in the public domain.
However -- if you *don't* own the rights, that is a different
matter. It is copyright infringement in aid of more copyright
infringement. :-)
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
According to R.H. <[email protected]>:
>
> >
> > Done. The subject is "One-man bucksaw - 3 attachments"
> > but it looks like I'm not a very good usenet user either. One of the
> > attachments didn't make it. Don't know why, I treated just like the
> > others with PaintShop Pro to resize it, but two of them made it and one
> > of them came through as gibberish text. Maybe I ought to send them just
> > one at a time.
> >
> > If you want the third one I'll repost it but I think you can get the idea
> > from the two that made it. Let me know if you want me to try again.
> >
> > Dan
>
> Where did you post them? I scanned the three groups that this thread is in
> but didn't see a post with your subject line, maybe I just missed it.
A growing number of news servers reject articles with binary
attachments in non-binary newsgroups. The solution is to put the image
on a web site (the dropbox, if you don't have one of your own), and just
post the URL for it to the newsgroup.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
According to Rich Grise <[email protected]>:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:37:42 +0000, DoN. Nichols wrote:
> > According to Tim Shoppa <[email protected]>:
> ...
> >> As enigmatic as Gary Larson's "Cow Tools" :-).
> >>
> >> http://www.salon.com/people/portfolio/1999/12/21/larson/older4.html
> >
> > I like that one.
>
> I don't get it. )-;
It is like us, trying to figure out what these puzzle tools do,
when we don't even know what field they work in.
Would you expect to understand what a cow's tools do, when you
don't even know what kind of work a cow might want to do with tools?
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
According to Barbara Bailey <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:10:03 +0000, [email protected] (DoN.
> Nichols) wrote:
[ ... ]
> > Is your husband still with us? If so, perhaps you could ask his
> >opinion on the matter.
[ ... ]
> He is, but he has no clue on the mysterious whatzit. He didn't make
> it much past the 1" cube test--he's got poison hands,
Aha! A "ruster". That is an awkward condition for a machinist.
> and this was
> long before latex gloves were readily available.
There is also a special soap -- used by the Swiss watchmakers --
to neutralize the hands. It is probably too expensive for general
machining work. Easier to give him a different job.
> Ah, well, it was a
> thought...
Thanks for the suggestions
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:46:19 GMT, "R.H." <[email protected]> wrote:
>Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
>second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
>set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
>them so I've included them in this new post.
>
>http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
>
>Rob
>
565 appears to be some sort of a kitchen grinder-- for coffee or
spices would be my guess
566 is the handle from a walking stick
567 military ammo pouches?
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:10:03 +0000, [email protected] (DoN.
Nichols) wrote:
>According to Barbara Bailey <[email protected]>:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:44:16 -0800, Brooks Moses
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Barbara Bailey wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:11:45 +0000, [email protected] (DoN.
>> >> Nichols) wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> >>> O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
>> >>>measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
>> >>>looks to be surface ground to dimension.
>> >>>
>> >>>Are there any markings on it other than the end markings?
>> >>
>> >> DoN; is there anny possibility that it's a machinist's "masterpiece"
>> >> (in the original sense--the piece produced to prove that he'd mastered
>> >> some aspect of his training?) Do machinist apprentices still have to
>> >> do such things?
>
> As others have answered -- I don't think so. That is designed
>for use, not show, and the turned section is intended as a handle to get
>it to where it would be used.
>
>> >It seems possible, I suppose, but it also seems remarkably simple for
>> >such a thing. In the simplistic shop class I took in college, our
>> >"masterpieces" had gear teeth and threads and suchlike on them, and I'd
>> >imagine a real machinist would have something at least as complex.
>> >
>> >(They were really more for giving us experience with the various tools
>> >than for illustrating mastery, though.)
>> >
>> >- Brooks
>>
>> The reason I asked is that my husband has mentioned that when he was
>> apprenticing at a machinist's, he had to make a 1" cube to some
>> incredibly fine tolerence before he was allowed to move on to the next
>> step. So, not a final masterpiece really, but a 'proof of competence
>> in this aspect' piece?
>
> IIRC, (though I have never been an apprentice), the cube had to
>be made by filing to fit a square hole -- and it had to be a precise fit
>though it in all orientations. I forget whether the apprentice's master
>would supply the square hole, or whether the apprentice had to make that
>as well.
>
> This item looks to have been made slightly oversized, stamped on
>the end to mark it, hardened, and surface ground to final dimensions.
>
> Is your husband still with us? If so, perhaps you could ask his
>opinion on the matter.
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.
He is, but he has no clue on the mysterious whatzit. He didn't make
it much past the 1" cube test--he's got poison hands, and this was
long before latex gloves were readily available. Ah, well, it was a
thought...
> > Turns out that it's not real close to 15/16" (.9375), I used two
different
> > micrometers, the digital one read .924 and the mechanical one .917. So
it's
> > closer to 59/64, which is .921875, I'm guessing that it's still most
likely
> > a gauge for checking some work.
>
> Did you check whether the dimensions were the same side to side
> as top to bottom? I would expect them to be so, so it would not matter
> which way you installed it.
Yes it was same on both sides and top to bottom, so it could be used in
either orientation.
Rob
566 Glove of the type required when petting my cat.
"R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and
the
> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to
verify
> them so I've included them in this new post.
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
>
>
bremen68 wrote:
> R.H. wrote:
>
>>Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
>>second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
>>set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
>>them so I've included them in this new post.
>>
>>http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>>Rob
>
>
> Hi Rob...My guesses...
>
> 563 Is that a Galileo Thermometer Globe?
> 564 Saw Tooth Set
> 565 Art Deco (70's) mixer/blender
> 566 Cane Handle
> 567 WWI Ammo Belt
> 568 Crimping tool of some sort?
>
565. Jetson's coffee grinder?
566. Place holding pointer used when reading from a Torah scroll?
That insect like thing depicted on it makes me wonder, but maybe it's a
representation of a locust like insect which is considered kosher?
http://oukosher.org/index.php/faqs/single/locusts/
Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
"Truth exists; only falsehood has to be invented."
>
> Done. The subject is "One-man bucksaw - 3 attachments"
> but it looks like I'm not a very good usenet user either. One of the
> attachments didn't make it. Don't know why, I treated just like the
> others with PaintShop Pro to resize it, but two of them made it and one
> of them came through as gibberish text. Maybe I ought to send them just
> one at a time.
>
> If you want the third one I'll repost it but I think you can get the idea
> from the two that made it. Let me know if you want me to try again.
>
> Dan
Where did you post them? I scanned the three groups that this thread is in
but didn't see a post with your subject line, maybe I just missed it.
Rob
>
> O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
> measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
> looks to be surface ground to dimension.
>
> Are there any markings on it other than the end markings?
I was planning to use the micrometer at work today but it wasn't available,
I should be able to use it in a day or two. There are no markings on it
other than on the visible end. One more thing about it that I don't think
that I mentioned before, it's made from a single piece of metal.
Rob
> 566. Place holding pointer used when reading from a Torah scroll?
>
> That insect like thing depicted on it makes me wonder, but maybe it's a
> representation of a locust like insect which is considered kosher?
I think that it's supposed to be a dragon, though the head of it is lacking
in detail and is the weakest part of the piece.
Rob
I have a guess at 244.
It is a weight from a chain from a WWII D-Day Flail tank.
See the picture on the right near the bottom of:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_dday/clues.html
The front of the tank had a rotating cylinder with 6-ft. chains attached.
The chain had fist-sized weights hung on it. The flailing chains detonated
mines.
"R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and
> the
> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to
> verify
> them so I've included them in this new post.
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
>
>
> 567) Military style ammo belt. Each pocket would hold a stripper
> clip full of rifle rounds.
>
> It looks as though it is intended to be only part of a complete
> set. Perhaps it joins to another, or perhaps to a knapsack.
>
I was wondering why three of the pockets have four small air holes on the
back while the other two do not.
> 244) It looks as though it is intended to be assembled around a
> leather strap, and then hung from something. Perhaps part of
> the harness for a team of oxen?
I think you may be right about it being attached to a leather strap, or
possibly a rope as someone else mentioned, the metal is partly smooth on the
inside from wear. Or it could have clamped on to a piece of metal on a
scale. Someone from a weight and scale collector web site said that it was
an ice weight, but I couldn't find anything about it to confirm this, nor
would he elaborate when asked.
> 76) Perhaps it goes on the bottom end of a wooden tripod leg,
> such as for a surveyor's tripod?
I'm leaning toward tripod leg on this one too, but for what I don't know.
> 186) I don't remember seeing this one before. I would like a closer
> look at the jaws. Perhaps it is a punch for making holes in
> leather belts? I'm not sure what the pivoting part is for --
> other than to keep it a fixed distance off the floor, or to
> clamp in a vise to free both hands to thread the leather into
> position and then operate the handles to punch the hole?
Tomorrow I'll post a closer shot of the jaws.
> 212) Hmmm ... can you measure the distance between the sides and the
> top and bottom surfaces? It looks as though it is intended to
> be a gauge block with a handle of some sort.
>
> Is it tapered, or is that an artifact of the camera?
>
> I would guess that it is quite close to 1.000" square.
Also tomorrow I'll measure this one, I don't have it with me here.
Rob
In article <[email protected]>,
Oleg Lego <[email protected]> wrote:
>The Robert Bonomi entity posted thusly:
>
>>Would you believe "Carbon tetra-chloride"?
>>
>>It _does_ extinguish fires. But the gas it givesoff is rather dangerous.
>
>Minor trivia:
>Folks who made hats used to use 'carbon-tet', and it affected their
>brains. Hence the phrase "Mad as a hatter".
Heard the same story, but with mercury.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
> I think that those are intended (two at a time) to match hooks
> in the end of the other half of the ammo belt, to adjust it to the
> wearer. That end would thread through the rectangular guide on the
> right-hand end (your back view), and plug into a pair of holes to set
> the length. Are there reinforcing rings in those holes?
The holes along the top and bottom of the ammo belt are larger and have
reinforcing rings, the smaller holes aren't reinforced.
>
> > > 244) It looks as though it is intended to be assembled around a
> > > leather strap, and then hung from something. Perhaps part of
> > > the harness for a team of oxen?
> >
> >
> > I think you may be right about it being attached to a leather strap, or
> > possibly a rope as someone else mentioned, the metal is partly smooth on
the
> > inside from wear. Or it could have clamped on to a piece of metal on a
> > scale. Someone from a weight and scale collector web site said that it
was
> > an ice weight, but I couldn't find anything about it to confirm this,
nor
> > would he elaborate when asked.
Here is a photo showing the wear on the upper piece of this weight, the slot
is wider at the opening and tapers a bit narrower so the wear is more
prominent about 1/4" from the edge.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/harnett65/Album%203/pic244d.jpg
> > > 186) I don't remember seeing this one before. I would like a closer
> > > look at the jaws. Perhaps it is a punch for making holes in
> > > leather belts? I'm not sure what the pivoting part is for --
> > > other than to keep it a fixed distance off the floor, or to
> > > clamp in a vise to free both hands to thread the leather into
> > > position and then operate the handles to punch the hole?
A closer shot of the jaws:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/harnett65/Album%203/pic186c.jpg
One possibility for this tool is that it could be a miter clamp, as seen in
this photo:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/harnett65/Album%203/pic186d.jpg
----
I'll measure that other tool later today.
Rob
[email protected] (Mark Brader) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Robert Bonomi:
>>> Would you believe "Carbon tetra-chloride"?
>>> It _does_ extinguish fires. But the gas it givesoff is rather
>>> dangerous.
>
> Oleg Lego:
>> Folks who made hats used to use 'carbon-tet', and it affected their
>> brains. Hence the phrase "Mad as a hatter".
>
> Nope. That was mercury, not carbon tet.
Correct. CCl4 gives you liver cancer IIRC.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Fri 20 Jan 2006 04:21:58p, "R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 543: Seems like long ago an old timer pointed to one of those and
>> said it was a fencing tool. You looped the wire on one of the teeth
>> and levered it against whatever was handy to tighten the wire, and
>> you hammered staples with the hammerhead.
>
> Sounds reasonable, though this tool doesn't look like it would be very
> comfortable to hold with a bare hand.
That was my exact thought too. But there's that hammerhead right there,
and if one assumes it's used the way one would normally use a hammer,
then there's either a part missing that would cover up all those teeth,
or people just put up with a lot of discomfort back then.
Or maybe both. :-)
>> them and if you want I can post the one or two that actually have
>> something to see on ABPW later this evening. I believe there's one
>> where you can clearly see this part as one piece of a one-man
>> bucksaw.
> Yes, please post them, I just did a google search on bucksaws and
> didn't see anything like #447, so I'd be interested to see your
> photos.
Done. The subject is "One-man bucksaw - 3 attachments"
but it looks like I'm not a very good usenet user either. One of the
attachments didn't make it. Don't know why, I treated just like the
others with PaintShop Pro to resize it, but two of them made it and one
of them came through as gibberish text. Maybe I ought to send them just
one at a time.
If you want the third one I'll repost it but I think you can get the idea
from the two that made it. Let me know if you want me to try again.
Dan
On Sat 21 Jan 2006 04:25:43p, "R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Where did you post them? I scanned the three groups that this thread
> is in but didn't see a post with your subject line, maybe I just
> missed it.
>
Ack. Sorry Rob. ABPW is
alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking
If you can't get to that one, we'll have to work something out. As far as I
know, Google doesn't carry any of the binary groups so if that's all you
can use, we'll have to work on it.
Dan
On Sat 21 Jan 2006 07:20:56p, "R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Thanks, looks like you nailed this one, it appears to be the same
> piece of hardware, if you don't mind I'll post one of the photos on my
> site.
>
> Rob
Oh sure. I'm pretty sure just posting them to abpw puts them in the public
domain :-) but you have my permission to use either of them as you like.
Dan
> Ack. Sorry Rob. ABPW is
> alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking
>
> If you can't get to that one, we'll have to work something out. As far as
I
> know, Google doesn't carry any of the binary groups so if that's all you
> can use, we'll have to work on it.
>
> Dan
Thanks, looks like you nailed this one, it appears to be the same piece of
hardware, if you don't mind I'll post one of the photos on my site.
Rob
"R.H." <[email protected]> writes:
>Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
>second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
>set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
>them so I've included them in this new post.
>
>http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
>
>Rob
>
>
#564 Saw Set (for setting handsaw teeth)
#565 Ice Crusher
#568 Stanley #65? universal spokeshave
> O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
> measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
> looks to be surface ground to dimension.
Turns out that it's not real close to 15/16" (.9375), I used two different
micrometers, the digital one read .924 and the mechanical one .917. So it's
closer to 59/64, which is .921875, I'm guessing that it's still most likely
a gauge for checking some work.
Rob
R.H. wrote:
> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
> them so I've included them in this new post.
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
>
>
563 Old fire extingisher
564 Saw set, for setting the teeth on saws
565 ??
566 ??
567 Ammo Carrier?
568 ??
from rcm
According to R.H. <[email protected]>:
>
> > O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
> > measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
> > looks to be surface ground to dimension.
>
>
> Turns out that it's not real close to 15/16" (.9375), I used two different
> micrometers, the digital one read .924 and the mechanical one .917. So it's
> closer to 59/64, which is .921875, I'm guessing that it's still most likely
> a gauge for checking some work.
Did you check whether the dimensions were the same side to side
as top to bottom? I would expect them to be so, so it would not matter
which way you installed it.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
R.H. wrote:
> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
> them so I've included them in this new post.
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
>
>
563 is a fire extingusher. the "throw it at the fire" type. :-)
564 looks something like a saw set but is not.
565 I think is an ice crusher for those fancy drinks.
...lew...
According to R.H. <[email protected]>:
> > 567) Military style ammo belt. Each pocket would hold a stripper
> > clip full of rifle rounds.
> >
> > It looks as though it is intended to be only part of a complete
> > set. Perhaps it joins to another, or perhaps to a knapsack.
> >
>
>
> I was wondering why three of the pockets have four small air holes on the
> back while the other two do not.
I think that those are intended (two at a time) to match hooks
in the end of the other half of the ammo belt, to adjust it to the
wearer. That end would thread through the rectangular guide on the
right-hand end (your back view), and plug into a pair of holes to set
the length. Are there reinforcing rings in those holes?
> > 244) It looks as though it is intended to be assembled around a
> > leather strap, and then hung from something. Perhaps part of
> > the harness for a team of oxen?
>
>
> I think you may be right about it being attached to a leather strap, or
> possibly a rope as someone else mentioned, the metal is partly smooth on the
> inside from wear. Or it could have clamped on to a piece of metal on a
> scale. Someone from a weight and scale collector web site said that it was
> an ice weight, but I couldn't find anything about it to confirm this, nor
> would he elaborate when asked.
Interesting.
> > 76) Perhaps it goes on the bottom end of a wooden tripod leg,
> > such as for a surveyor's tripod?
>
> I'm leaning toward tripod leg on this one too, but for what I don't know.
Part of my reason for suspecting this is the angled foot, which
would be level when the legs of a tripod were properly spread.
> > 186) I don't remember seeing this one before. I would like a closer
> > look at the jaws. Perhaps it is a punch for making holes in
> > leather belts? I'm not sure what the pivoting part is for --
> > other than to keep it a fixed distance off the floor, or to
> > clamp in a vise to free both hands to thread the leather into
> > position and then operate the handles to punch the hole?
>
> Tomorrow I'll post a closer shot of the jaws.
O.K. Thanks.
> > 212) Hmmm ... can you measure the distance between the sides and the
> > top and bottom surfaces? It looks as though it is intended to
> > be a gauge block with a handle of some sort.
> >
> > Is it tapered, or is that an artifact of the camera?
> >
> > I would guess that it is quite close to 1.000" square.
>
> Also tomorrow I'll measure this one, I don't have it with me here.
O.K. Thanks again.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 543: Seems like long ago an old timer pointed to one of those and said
> it was a fencing tool. You looped the wire on one of the teeth and
> levered it against whatever was handy to tighten the wire, and you
> hammered staples with the hammerhead.
Sounds reasonable, though this tool doesn't look like it would be very
comfortable to hold with a bare hand.
>
> 447: I did get pictures of that last fall.
> Well, I *took* some pictures. They didn't come out so good. I thought
> there was enough light but there wasn't. I've been working on some of
> them and if you want I can post the one or two that actually have
> something to see on ABPW later this evening. I believe there's one
> where you can clearly see this part as one piece of a one-man bucksaw.
> I haven't talked about it because I'm embarassed about saying I was
> going to take photos and then coming back with mostly pictures of a
> black cat eating licorice in a cave at midnight.
Yes, please post them, I just did a google search on bucksaws and didn't see
anything like #447, so I'd be interested to see your photos.
Thanks,
Rob
According to R.H. <[email protected]>:
>
> > I think that those are intended (two at a time) to match hooks
> > in the end of the other half of the ammo belt, to adjust it to the
> > wearer. That end would thread through the rectangular guide on the
> > right-hand end (your back view), and plug into a pair of holes to set
> > the length. Are there reinforcing rings in those holes?
>
>
> The holes along the top and bottom of the ammo belt are larger and have
> reinforcing rings, the smaller holes aren't reinforced.
Yes -- those larger holes are to prevent tear-out of the loaded
pockets. the others don't really *need* reenforcing rings, though they
*might* have had some. In any case -- the holes are to allow joining to
the other half of the ammo belt, and to adjust for the wearer's size
(and for the number of layers of warm clothing he may be wearing as
well. :-)
>
> >
> > > > 244) It looks as though it is intended to be assembled around a
> > > > leather strap, and then hung from something. Perhaps part of
> > > > the harness for a team of oxen?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think you may be right about it being attached to a leather strap, or
> > > possibly a rope as someone else mentioned, the metal is partly smooth on
> the
> > > inside from wear.
That looks like an intentional smoothing, not wear -- and it is
for a strap, not a rope (though the strap *could* be canvas instead of
leather). If it were wear from a rope, it would form two grooves on
either side of the screw which secures the two halves together.
Or it could have clamped on to a piece of metal on a
> > > scale. Someone from a weight and scale collector web site said that it
> was
> > > an ice weight, but I couldn't find anything about it to confirm this,
> nor
> > > would he elaborate when asked.
>
> Here is a photo showing the wear on the upper piece of this weight, the slot
> is wider at the opening and tapers a bit narrower so the wear is more
> prominent about 1/4" from the edge.
>
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/harnett65/Album%203/pic244d.jpg
Yes -- I think that this is not wear, but intentional grinding
to allow some flexing of the strap enclosed.
> > > > 186) I don't remember seeing this one before. I would like a closer
> > > > look at the jaws. Perhaps it is a punch for making holes in
> > > > leather belts? I'm not sure what the pivoting part is for --
> > > > other than to keep it a fixed distance off the floor, or to
> > > > clamp in a vise to free both hands to thread the leather into
> > > > position and then operate the handles to punch the hole?
>
> A closer shot of the jaws:
>
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/harnett65/Album%203/pic186c.jpg
O.K. Not a punch, based on those shots.
> One possibility for this tool is that it could be a miter clamp, as seen in
> this photo:
>
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/harnett65/Album%203/pic186d.jpg
That looks like a proper function for it. And the pivoting of
the separate piece would allow it to deal with two pieces of wood of
different width.
> I'll measure that other tool later today.
O.K.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
According to R.H. <[email protected]>:
> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
> them so I've included them in this new post.
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
O.K. I'm posting from rec.crafts.metalworking again.
563) My first guess would be a sock darning "egg". I'm not sure why
the liquid -- other than to give it a bit of heft.
564) That is an interesting tool. I suspect that the sliding part
under the thumb screw is serrated on the surface which fits
against the body of the tool, and that the body is similarly
serrated, so once you tighten the screw, the sliding part won't
slide at the wrong time.
It looks as though its function is to bend something held in the
angled jaws -- perhaps to do something like crimp the end of
some copper tubing.
In any case, when the handles are operated, the square rod rises
to push the workpiece against the horizontal part of the
removable anvil in the top jaw. (I wonder what other jaw sets
were available for it?)
The spring is obviously to push the rod back and thus push the
handle back to its rest position.
565) I'm sure that I've seen one of these before. I forget whether
it was to produce shaved ice, or to squeeze an orange half to
produce juice. I think the former, because I don't see a firm
enough catch on the top to keep the orange half from pushing the
lid open.
566) Perhaps a weight for the end of a curtain pull?
567) Military style ammo belt. Each pocket would hold a stripper
clip full of rifle rounds.
It looks as though it is intended to be only part of a complete
set. Perhaps it joins to another, or perhaps to a knapsack.
568) Some kind of wood plane -- perhaps for wagon wheel spokes?
Old mystery items follow:
436) Perhaps one of Ben Franklin's electricity experiments?
471) Simple encryption/decryption device? Set the white arrow
to a white number to go one way, set the darker (perhaps red)
arrow to a white number to go the other way? Not a very good
encryption system -- perhaps something to use along with a
locksmith's book of key numbers to cut depths for recreating a
key for a lock in hand?
472) I still think that this is a sort of dirt tamper -- perhaps to
compact the dirt just shoveled into a post hole around the
fence post.
473) No real clue on this one.
244) It looks as though it is intended to be assembled around a
leather strap, and then hung from something. Perhaps part of
the harness for a team of oxen?
228) Looking at this again, it seems to me that it was designed to
unfold and be slid along the edge of a plank to make a scribe a
particular distance from the edge. Looking at the triangular
ruler in the photos, I would guess that the distance is 18", but
it could be something similar.
Perhaps it is for marking planks to be cut to width at a
sawmill?
76) Perhaps it goes on the bottom end of a wooden tripod leg,
such as for a surveyor's tripod?
186) I don't remember seeing this one before. I would like a closer
look at the jaws. Perhaps it is a punch for making holes in
leather belts? I'm not sure what the pivoting part is for --
other than to keep it a fixed distance off the floor, or to
clamp in a vise to free both hands to thread the leather into
position and then operate the handles to punch the hole?
202) Could the "reamer" actually be a screwdriver point? I think
that I've seen vaguely similar devices designed to work the
screws holding pole pieces into the frame of a generator. You
have to take out a very large and tight screw to replace the
coils around the pole pieces.
The screw on the other end adjusts for different diameters of
generators.
212) Hmmm ... can you measure the distance between the sides and the
top and bottom surfaces? It looks as though it is intended to
be a gauge block with a handle of some sort.
Is it tapered, or is that an artifact of the camera?
I would guess that it is quite close to 1.000" square.
246) No more to add to this one.
298) Perhaps tongs for picking up an ice cube from in a glass.
Perhaps designed to grip a coffee urn similar in shape to a
Florence flask (spherical bottom and cylindrical neck).
The quality does not look good enough to be chemistry lab
equipment.
447) No additional guesses on this one.
432) Hmm ... designed to hold bait on a trap?
Or designed to mold a lead weight of a fixed size?
383) I forget what guesses this one brought.
I think that it is either designed for chipping something with
the edge presented by the hammer head used in a normal manner,
or for folding the edge of something at an awkward angle, thus
explaining the angle of the hammer face.
I prefer this collection of old puzzles to your posting the
previous week's as a semi-continuation of the current week's puzzles.
Now to see what others have guessed.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
According to Rich Grise <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 05:00:03 -0800, Tim Shoppa wrote:
>
> > R.H. wrote:
> >
> >> Some of the items in the unsolved
> >> set may have been correctly answered previously but I
> >> wasn't able to verify them so I've included them
> >> in this new post.
> >
> > My one piece of insight to share on #471 is that if you look at the red
> > numbers, they are different by 4 or 5 from the adjacent red numbers.
> > With the exception of 9 and 0 (which are either 1 or 9 apart, depending
> > on how you look at it.)
> >
> > My gut feeling is that this dial is for remapping the 0-9 digits such
> > that adjacent digits do not come out near each other in the remap,
> > maybe something like a grey code. The 20-tooth cog and the
> > microswitch-style rider look like something out of a phone
> > pulse-switching system, although what kind of stepper switch they might
> > control I still do not fathom.
> >
>
> Maybe from an "Enigma" coder/decoder circa WWII. I'm almost sure I've
> seen such a thing before - the 45 degree bevel on the back is a
> dead giveaway that it stuck out from some console, but I can't remember
> for the life of me where I've seen it.
Too simple to be an "enigma", which used several rotors, with
crossed wiring from contacts on one side to contacts on the other side,
and some subset of them were rotated with each new character entered.
There was a keyboard, which closed contacts, fed through all of the
rotors (I think that the general one was three rotor, and the submarine
force later got a four-rotor version), and the scrambled wiring
eventually lit a small lamp behind the character which stood for the
original one.
But it probably could be used for something like changing digits
in a key code book for cutting a key from the number on the lock. (They
would not want it to be too simple, but also not so difficult that a
locksmith could not make keys at need.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <[email protected]> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:44:16 -0800, Brooks Moses
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Barbara Bailey wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:11:45 +0000, [email protected] (DoN.
>> Nichols) wrote:
>>>According to R.H. <[email protected]>:
>>>>Just measured this tool, it's 15/16" square, you're probably right about it
>>>>being a gauge, I couldn't find any similar ones to verify it, so I included
>>>>it in the unsolved set.
>>>
>>> O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
>>>measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
>>>looks to be surface ground to dimension.
>>>
>>>Are there any markings on it other than the end markings?
>>
>> DoN; is there anny possibility that it's a machinist's "masterpiece"
>> (in the original sense--the piece produced to prove that he'd mastered
>> some aspect of his training?) Do machinist apprentices still have to
>> do such things?
>
>It seems possible, I suppose, but it also seems remarkably simple for
>such a thing. In the simplistic shop class I took in college, our
>"masterpieces" had gear teeth and threads and suchlike on them, and I'd
>imagine a real machinist would have something at least as complex.
>
>(They were really more for giving us experience with the various tools
>than for illustrating mastery, though.)
>
>- Brooks
The reason I asked is that my husband has mentioned that when he was
apprenticing at a machinist's, he had to make a 1" cube to some
incredibly fine tolerence before he was allowed to move on to the next
step. So, not a final masterpiece really, but a 'proof of competence
in this aspect' piece?
They've all been answered correctly this week:
563. Fire grenade
564. Saw set
565. Ice crusher
566. Cane handle
567. Ammo belt
568. Stanley No. 67 spoke shave
A few new photos and a link have been posted on the answer page:
http://pzphotosans100bv.blogspot.com/
I'll reply to more posts tomorrow, I've got a busy night ahead of me.
Rob
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:57:31 -0500, Sawney Beane
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"R.H." wrote:
>>
>> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
>> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
>> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
>> them so I've included them in this new post.
>>
>> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Rob
>
>566 Does it have a hole for a screw? I think it goes on the
>handle end of a walking stick in case you want to use the handle
>end as a weapon.
My husband suggested that this might be the handle of a fancy riding
crop or swagger-stick, rather than a cane. If the total length is 3.25
inches, then the opening for the shaft at the hand is just a hair
under 1/2 an inch (unless, of couse I've completely bobbled my
math...) That seems awfully thin for a cane, but just about right for
the butt end of a crop.
>
Barb
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:11:45 +0000, [email protected] (DoN.
Nichols) wrote:
>According to R.H. <[email protected]>:
>>
>> > 212) Hmmm ... can you measure the distance between the sides and the
>> > top and bottom surfaces? It looks as though it is intended to
>> > be a gauge block with a handle of some sort.
>> >
>> > Is it tapered, or is that an artifact of the camera?
>>
>> It's not tapered, though it does look like it is in the photo.
>>
>> > I would guess that it is quite close to 1.000" square.
>>
>> Just measured this tool, it's 15/16" square, you're probably right about it
>> being a gauge, I couldn't find any similar ones to verify it, so I included
>> it in the unsolved set.
>
> O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to
>measure it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it
>looks to be surface ground to dimension.
>
>Are there any markings on it other than the end markings?
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.
DoN; is there anny possibility that it's a machinist's "masterpiece"
(in the original sense--the piece produced to prove that he'd mastered
some aspect of his training?) Do machinist apprentices still have to
do such things?
Barb
I think that is suppose to represent a glove or hand gripping something,
Looks a lot like a glove from a suit of armour. It might be a cane top
without the stick??
Jeff Wisnia wrote:
> bremen68 wrote:
>
>> R.H. wrote:
>>
>>> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new
>>> and the
>>> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the
>>> unsolved
>>> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to
>>> verify
>>> them so I've included them in this new post.
>>>
>>> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Rob...My guesses...
>>
>> 563 Is that a Galileo Thermometer Globe?
>> 564 Saw Tooth Set
>> 565 Art Deco (70's) mixer/blender
>> 566 Cane Handle
>> 567 WWI Ammo Belt
>> 568 Crimping tool of some sort?
>>
>
>
> 565. Jetson's coffee grinder?
>
> 566. Place holding pointer used when reading from a Torah scroll?
>
> That insect like thing depicted on it makes me wonder, but maybe it's a
> representation of a locust like insect which is considered kosher?
>
> http://oukosher.org/index.php/faqs/single/locusts/
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:19:56 -0600, Oleg Lego <[email protected]>
wrote:
>The Robert Bonomi entity posted thusly:
>
>>Would you believe "Carbon tetra-chloride"?
>>
>>It _does_ extinguish fires. But the gas it givesoff is rather dangerous.
>
>Minor trivia:
>Folks who made hats used to use 'carbon-tet', and it affected their
>brains. Hence the phrase "Mad as a hatter".
Thought it was mercury salts that did that to the hatters. The mercury
salts were used for curing the pelts that went into the hats.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:46:19 +0000, R.H. wrote:
> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
> them so I've included them in this new post.
>
> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>
Well, I'm late, as usual, but there is at least one I want to guess at
before I read everybody else's answers:
563 - a decorative dangly thing, on art deco chandeliers and the like.
564 - clearly some kind of squeezer with interchangeable dies, but I
have no idea what it's supposed to squeeze.
565 - Art Deco Salad Shooter?
566 - Walking Stick Finial, sans stick
567 - Ammo Belt
568 - no idea
569 - oops! Never mind. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:04:52 -0500, Howard R Garner wrote:
> R.H. wrote:
>> Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
>> second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
>> set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
>> them so I've included them in this new post.
>>
>> http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
> 563 Old fire extingisher
D'OH! Yes! Of course! That's where I've seen those things dangle! (I had
guessed "something decorative, like a chandelier") It was so many decades
ago, I definitely remember seeing them hanging in soft metal straps, but
forgot entirely where I saw one, until just now, you triggered my memory -
in my Grandma's attic!
Except, I'd be more likely to categorize it as an early version of a
"sprinkler"[1], not a whole extinguisher, unless it's full of halon or
something. ;-)
Thanks!
Rich
[1]Or maybe a "splasher?" ;-) It's held by a band of low-melting alloy,
which when it melts, drops the globe on whatever's under it, the glass
is incredibly fragile, it breaks, and dumps the liquid all over
everything. I remember Dad cautioning me not to touch them in Grandma's
attic, because they were so fragile. ;-)
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 05:00:03 -0800, Tim Shoppa wrote:
> R.H. wrote:
>
>> Some of the items in the unsolved
>> set may have been correctly answered previously but I
>> wasn't able to verify them so I've included them
>> in this new post.
>
> My one piece of insight to share on #471 is that if you look at the red
> numbers, they are different by 4 or 5 from the adjacent red numbers.
> With the exception of 9 and 0 (which are either 1 or 9 apart, depending
> on how you look at it.)
>
> My gut feeling is that this dial is for remapping the 0-9 digits such
> that adjacent digits do not come out near each other in the remap,
> maybe something like a grey code. The 20-tooth cog and the
> microswitch-style rider look like something out of a phone
> pulse-switching system, although what kind of stepper switch they might
> control I still do not fathom.
>
Maybe from an "Enigma" coder/decoder circa WWII. I'm almost sure I've
seen such a thing before - the 45 degree bevel on the back is a
dead giveaway that it stuck out from some console, but I can't remember
for the life of me where I've seen it.
Thanks,
Rich
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:12:30 -0500, Jeff Wisnia wrote:
> bremen68 wrote:
>> R.H. wrote:
>>
>>>Two sets of photos have been posted this week, the first one is new and the
>>>second is a repost of unsolved objects. Some of the items in the unsolved
>>>set may have been correctly answered previously but I wasn't able to verify
>>>them so I've included them in this new post.
>>>
>>>http://puzzlephotos.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>Rob
>>
>>
>> Hi Rob...My guesses...
>>
>> 563 Is that a Galileo Thermometer Globe?
>> 564 Saw Tooth Set
>> 565 Art Deco (70's) mixer/blender
>> 566 Cane Handle
>> 567 WWI Ammo Belt
>> 568 Crimping tool of some sort?
>>
>
>
> 565. Jetson's coffee grinder?
>
> 566. Place holding pointer used when reading from a Torah scroll?
The Monkey's Gauntlet. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:37:42 +0000, DoN. Nichols wrote:
> According to Tim Shoppa <[email protected]>:
...
>> As enigmatic as Gary Larson's "Cow Tools" :-).
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/people/portfolio/1999/12/21/larson/older4.html
>
> I like that one.
I don't get it. )-;
Thanks,
Rich
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:23:39 +0000, Dan wrote:
> On Fri 20 Jan 2006 04:21:58p, "R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> 543: Seems like long ago an old timer pointed to one of those and
>>> said it was a fencing tool. You looped the wire on one of the teeth
>>> and levered it against whatever was handy to tighten the wire, and
>>> you hammered staples with the hammerhead.
>>
>> Sounds reasonable, though this tool doesn't look like it would be very
>> comfortable to hold with a bare hand.
>
> That was my exact thought too. But there's that hammerhead right there,
> and if one assumes it's used the way one would normally use a hammer,
> then there's either a part missing that would cover up all those teeth,
> or people just put up with a lot of discomfort back then.
>
> Or maybe both. :-)
It wouldn't make much of a hammer with that swivel. I'm guessing that the
pointy part gets pounded into a post - i.e., you whack what looks like the
hammerhead, poke the point in, and you have kind of a swivel, which maybe
then you'd loop your fence wire over what looks like teeth, and pick a
tooth based on what kind of mechanical advantage you want as you tighten
the fence wire.
Well, that's my guess. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 23:22:46 +0000, Dan wrote:
> On Sat 21 Jan 2006 04:25:43p, "R.H." <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>> Where did you post them? I scanned the three groups that this thread
>> is in but didn't see a post with your subject line, maybe I just
>> missed it.
>>
>
> Ack. Sorry Rob. ABPW is
> alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking
>
> If you can't get to that one, we'll have to work something out. As far as I
> know, Google doesn't carry any of the binary groups so if that's all you
> can use, we'll have to work on it.
>
> Dan
I see all three pictures on my server, although the first one is a little
underexposed.
Cheers!
Rich
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:28:27 +0000, DoN. Nichols wrote:
> According to Rich Grise <[email protected]>:
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:37:42 +0000, DoN. Nichols wrote:
>> > According to Tim Shoppa <[email protected]>:
>> ...
>> >> As enigmatic as Gary Larson's "Cow Tools" :-).
>> >>
>> >> http://www.salon.com/people/portfolio/1999/12/21/larson/older4.html
>> >
>> > I like that one.
>>
>> I don't get it. )-;
>
> It is like us, trying to figure out what these puzzle tools do,
> when we don't even know what field they work in.
>
> Would you expect to understand what a cow's tools do, when you
> don't even know what kind of work a cow might want to do with tools?
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.
I thought it might have something to do with the cow toolmaker's
dexterity. ;-)
Thanks!
Rich
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:25:44 +0000, R.H. wrote:
>
>> O.K. How precisely is it 15/16"? Do you have a micrometer to measure
>> it precisely? I would expect it to be pretty precise, as it looks to be
>> surface ground to dimension.
>
>
> Turns out that it's not real close to 15/16" (.9375), I used two different
> micrometers, the digital one read .924 and the mechanical one .917. So
> it's closer to 59/64, which is .921875, I'm guessing that it's still most
> likely a gauge for checking some work.
>
You need your micrometers calibrated.
If I needed machining work done, and I found out that this is as close
to .001" as your shop can even _measure_, I'd RUN, not walk, to the
nearest exit!
Good Luck!
Rich
The Robert Bonomi entity posted thusly:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Oleg Lego <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Minor trivia:
>>Folks who made hats used to use 'carbon-tet', and it affected their
>>brains. Hence the phrase "Mad as a hatter".
>
>Sorry, but that's not quite correct.
>
> The other 'common' use for carbon-tet was as a dry-cleaning fluid.
>
> Hat-making used mercury in the making of the 'felt' from which many
> types of hats are formed. (ranging from Stetsons, to Derbys. :)
>
> Hatmakers _chewed_ (literally, as in 'masticated') the source
> material, to soften it, prior to forming into final shapes.
>
> The long-term effects of ingestion of low levels of mercury in
> that work, did give rise to various forms of insanity.
>
>
> The long-term effects of ingestion of low levels of mercury in
> that work, did give rise to various forms of insanity.
I stand corrected. Serves me right for taking the word of someone who
told me that many years ago, without checking on it myself.
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:37:32 GMT, "R.H." <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >566 Does it have a hole for a screw? I think it goes on the
>> >handle end of a walking stick in case you want to use the handle
>> >end as a weapon.
>
>
>The handle doesn't have a hole for a screw, it would make a good weapon but
>I don't know it was meant for that.
>
>
>> My husband suggested that this might be the handle of a fancy riding
>> crop or swagger-stick, rather than a cane. If the total length is 3.25
>> inches, then the opening for the shaft at the hand is just a hair
>> under 1/2 an inch (unless, of couse I've completely bobbled my
>> math...) That seems awfully thin for a cane, but just about right for
>> the butt end of a crop.
>> >
>> Barb
>
>I measured it by rolling up a piece of paper, inserting it into the handle,
>taping the paper and then getting the diameter of the cylinder, which was
>19/32". That makes it just under 5/8", probably thick enough for a fancy
>cane that's not meant to support much weight, I'm not familiar with riding
>crops and swagger-sticks so I don't know what size they usually were.
>
>Rob
>
OK, then. I was going by the apparent ratio of opening diameter to
length in the picture, and your stated length of 3.5 inches. Yes, 5/8
is about right for an evening cane.
> 212) Hmmm ... can you measure the distance between the sides and the
> top and bottom surfaces? It looks as though it is intended to
> be a gauge block with a handle of some sort.
>
> Is it tapered, or is that an artifact of the camera?
It's not tapered, though it does look like it is in the photo.
> I would guess that it is quite close to 1.000" square.
Just measured this tool, it's 15/16" square, you're probably right about it
being a gauge, I couldn't find any similar ones to verify it, so I included
it in the unsolved set.
Rob
> >566 Does it have a hole for a screw? I think it goes on the
> >handle end of a walking stick in case you want to use the handle
> >end as a weapon.
The handle doesn't have a hole for a screw, it would make a good weapon but
I don't know it was meant for that.
> My husband suggested that this might be the handle of a fancy riding
> crop or swagger-stick, rather than a cane. If the total length is 3.25
> inches, then the opening for the shaft at the hand is just a hair
> under 1/2 an inch (unless, of couse I've completely bobbled my
> math...) That seems awfully thin for a cane, but just about right for
> the butt end of a crop.
> >
> Barb
I measured it by rolling up a piece of paper, inserting it into the handle,
taping the paper and then getting the diameter of the cylinder, which was
19/32". That makes it just under 5/8", probably thick enough for a fancy
cane that's not meant to support much weight, I'm not familiar with riding
crops and swagger-sticks so I don't know what size they usually were.
Rob
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DoN. Nichols <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Well ... if the photos are your *own* work, and you post them to
>>an alt.binaries newsgroup with no restrictive notices, that is pretty
>>much equivalent to putting them in the public domain.
>
>
> Wrong. You automatically own copyright to any original work you produce
> unless you explicitly put that work into th epublic domain.
>
True but proving it is yours is a little
difficult. One way is to slightly crop any photo
that is sent out. Only you will have the
uncropped part that fits. Also, your case will be
supported if you warn others that the photo is
copyrighted. You do that by putting a copyright
mark (c in a circle) then the year and your name.
All of which is useless, because as an individual
you will not likely have the money to pursue a
court case and obtain money damages.
"Alexander Thesoso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:LrUzf.2186$Iw3.1823@trndny06...
> I have a guess at 244.
>
> It is a weight from a chain from a WWII D-Day Flail tank.
>
> See the picture on the right near the bottom of:
> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_dday/clues.html
>
> The front of the tank had a rotating cylinder with 6-ft. chains attached.
> The chain had fist-sized weights hung on it. The flailing chains
detonated
> mines.
Interesting idea, I'll have to see if I can find a close-up of the weights
that they use for those.
Rob