text:
In misc.consumers.house [email] wrote:
:  I would love to have R/G/B clusters that can be individualy dimmed
: via sliders.
: Not hard/expensive to do at all, and you could have just about any
: kind of lighting
: you want.

http://www.globalsources.com/gsol/I/LED-bulb/p/sm/1000650085.htm

"
" *  Features:
        o Remote controlled color-changing lamp
        o LED colors: red, green, blue and white
        o Energy-saving LED bulb
        o Can set your desired color via the remote
        o Colors can be changed with the transmitter to a shade of your choice
        o There are 256 codes for the receiver
        o Transmitter: AAA 1.5V x 3 and A23, 12V battery
        o Lower power dissipation
    * Specifications:
        o Power: 220V (+/-10), 50Hz
        o Remote distance: 25 meters maximum"

--- Chip


author: Charles Buchholtz

subject: Re: Compact fluorescents slow to reach full intensity

text:
In misc.consumers.house zeez <[email]> wrote:
: > :  I would love to have R/G/B clusters that can be individualy dimmed
: >
: > http://www.globalsources.com/gsol/I/LED-bulb/p/sm/1000650085.htm
: >         o Power: 220V (+/-10), 50Hz
:
:  Very nice, thanks! Do they sell for 120v/60hz current?

Don't know.  It took about 5 minutes of googling to find this product.
I was actually looking for a different company.  A number of companies
have multicolor products using R/G/B LEDs; I bet you'll find something
if you google.  For example:

http://www.amazon.com/LAMPS-PLUS-Color-Changing-Light/dp/B00075YXRO

I think this one continuously changes color, and you can stop it when
it gets to the color you want,

--- Chip


author: TKM

subject: Re: Compact fluorescents

text:
"gamer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:8kVIh.52337$[email]...

Great.  Hope they were marked "Energy Star" though (if bought in the U.S.).
Energy Star tests for life, light output, color and other performance
factors.  The criteria are on the E* site.

A warm-up period is normal for any fluorescent lamp.  It's a bit longer and
more noticeable in some CFLs.

TKM


author: Jeff Jonas

text:
That's one reason there are bulb extenders:
a socket that extends the bulb up an inch or so.
I understand that they're an additional cost
but it's a one time expense.


author: Logan Shaw

text:
Bucky wrote:

As opposed to other vegas-style things which aren't tacky?

   - Logan


author: Tim Smith

text:
In article <[email]>,
 [email] wrote:

I don't see a difference, but if I hook up in series some batteries, a
resistor, a photoresistor, and a current meter, and put the
photoresistor under a CFL and turn it on, I can see the current is
indeed going up over 30 secs or so, and so, presumably, the light is
going up.

With one of my lights, the current in the aforementioned circuit started
at 0.36 milliamps, and rose to 0.40.  With another light, it started at
0.34, and rose to about 0.38.  (The photoresistor was not at the same
distance from the lights, and they were not the same brand of light, nor
the same color, so such variation between the two is not surprising).


author: Paul M. Eldridge

text:
Hi Bill,

Heat is the killer of all things electronic and CFLs are no exception;
base up or base down operation will make little difference.

The Philips Marathon Universal (available at Home Depot) has an
operating range of -30C through to +60C (-22F to +140F).  If any CFL
is likely to provide long service life within an enclosed fixture,
this is the one.

See:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/can/ecatalog/cfl/pdf/p-3754.pdf

Cheers,
Paul

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 15:02:48 +0000 (UTC), [email] wrote:


text:
Hi Bill,

They're out there, but the selection is limited and you'll pay a
considerable premium for this feature.  I do know Home Depot stocks
the dimmable and three-way versions of Philip's Marathon.

Cheers,
Paul

On 9 Mar 2007 13:40:15 -0800, "WDS" <[email]> wrote:


text:
I highly doubt such a ban would extend to this type of application,
but cold cathode CFLs would be a good alternative.

See:
http://www.tcpi.com/PDF/494_01112%20Revision%20ALamp%20CC%20Colors%20SS.pdf

Cheers,
Paul

On 8 Mar 2007 14:59:37 -0800, "zeez" <[email]> wrote:


author: krw

text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] says...
It's a big enough of a deal (along with the crappy color) that I
won't buy any more CFs.


author: Gene S. Berkowitz

text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] says...

Yes, they do:

http://www.ledtronics.com/markets/25mm_med_index.htm

--Gene


author: Rod Speed

text:
[email] wrote:

Not just in the kitchen either, I have the bedroom light programmed
to dimmed after I go to bed, so when I turn it on manually in the
morning when its still dark, I dont get dazzled. I then tell the system
to turn the house lights on before I leave the bedroom and they are
turned off auto once the sun comes up etc.

Yeah, only way to go IMO.

I still use an incandescent in the bedroom, its not on for long enough
to matter electricity cost wise, lasts for years and years fine.


text:
zeez <[email]> wrote:

Australia wont be having a mindless blanket ban on incandescents.

Those and a raft of other stuff like fridge and oven
lights will certainly have an exemption in Australia.

Yes, thats already available for car lights and its perfectly
possible to do that with mains voltage bulbs too.

They're already widely used for traffic lights etc too.


author: Jeff

text:
Vandy Terre wrote:
   That is an interesting point. That was particularly applied to the
long tube fluorescent with the big ballasts. The CFs seem to use an
electronic ballast that changes the on/off pulse width. Longer "on" time
during startup yields higher voltages.  I don't think that start time is
very long though. I imagine the real warmup is the mercury vaporizing in
the tube. Whether the CF lamp uses a lot of power during startup is a
good question.

   Some quick (and dirty) tests with an amprobe and some CF bulbs.

Room Temp

GE 20W:  1/3 second surge of about double current (meter inertia makes
the peak unknown)
home despot (I think) 13W: no noticeable surge

40 F

No noticeable surge difference. GE bulb took about 20sec to come up at
least 80%, about the same for  the 13W. An already warmed up GE bulb
stayed that way for a while.

So, power saving wise, turn em off if it's more than a second. From a
lifetime issue, the ballast will take less punishment left on.
Apparently dollar store lamps have ballast problems, not sure what kills
the others or if they just get dark and funky lot an old 4' tube.

   Jeff


author: Alan Sung

subject: Re: Compact fluorescents

text:
"TKM" <[email]> wrote in message
news:7M1Jh.58172$[email]...

I bought some new CFL floods from Walmart and the warm-up time for these is
significantly longer. On the order of 2 to 3 minutes before full intensity.
The packaging says 100W equivalent, but when they first go on, they're about
as bright as a 25W bulb for the first minute. I've had much better
experience with the "Lights of America" brand where you barely noticed the
startup time.

-al sung
Rapid Realm Technology, Inc.
Hopkinton, MA


text:
Vandy Terre <[email]> wrote:

Not the original long tube fluorescents.

Thats arguable when its all day.


author: KLS

text:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:28:45 GMT, Paul M. Eldridge
<[email]> wrote:

This is exactly what that older 15W Philips CFL in my foyer fixture
looks like!  Works great, gives good light.


text:
krw wrote:

You can get CFs with great color. My Photo Club switched from
incandescant photo bulbs (the kind that with a short life, a high K and
color balanced frosting) to a commercial CF. The color balance (you can
really see this on B&W prints) is much better on the CFs. Not all CFs
are created equal.

  that I

   Your call. I like saving electricity.

   Jeff


author: Don Klipstein

text:
In <[email]>, Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

  The ballast is what typically gets outright killed by heat, and that
part of ballast-included CFLs will usually get hotter in base-up
situations.

  The 15, 20 and 23 watt non-dimmable SLS ones are even specifcally rated
for use in recessed ceiling fixtures, which are heat hellholes for CFLs.

 - Don Klipstein ([email])


author: "John Weiss"

subject: Re: Compact fluorescents

text:
"Alan Sung" <[email]> wrote...

I have replaced over half the most-used lights in my house with CFLs.  In
most cases the warmup time doesn't bother me.  In fact, I welcome the fact
that when I turn on a bathroom or kitchen light first thing in the morning,
I am not blinded by an immediate 100W arc!

In the kitchen I have 2 recessed floods over the sink and 4 over the stove.
In each I have left a single incandescent flood, and replaced the others
with CFLs.  I get immediate, bright light from the single light, and the
rest come up to speed in a few minutes, giving my eyes time to adjust.


text:
In <8fNHh.10384$[email]>, Jeff wrote:

  That is the issue.

  CFLs require a higher temperature.  The narrower tubing requires a
higher concentration of mercury vapor for full brightness, so must reach a
higher temperature.  (Non-compact "linear" fluorescents with tubing at
"room temperature" usually have something like 80% of full output, so the
warmup is usually not noticeable.)
  In addition, many CFLs have not pure mercury but an amalgam, which
requires a higher tubing temperature than pure mercury to achieve the
ideal concentration of mercury vapor.  However, the amalgam allows a wider
range of ambient temperature at which the brightness stabilizes at "nearly
enough full".

  CFL models with outer bulbs typically have design considering higher
tubing temperature that the outer bulb will cause, and these tend to have
more need for warmup (as well as wider usable ambient temperature range).

  The item that suffers wear from starting is the filaments/electrodes in
the bulb.  How badly will vary with starting method, but I seem to think
as some sort of typical:

4-5 minutes life lost per start for models that take 1/2-1 second to start
after brief end glow or no glow, and without blinking

Roughly 10 minutes life lost per start for models that start instantly,
especially ones that have a small sudden distinct uptick in brightness
from one distinct discernable level to another a fraction of a second to
nearly a second after starting

20-30 minutes life lost per start for models that usually blink at least
once to often a couple or a few times when starting

  I have found the dollar store ones to have many problems.

  In my experience, light output of dollar store models when claimed
always falls short of the claim, anywhere from a little significantly to
by a factor exceeding 3.
  In my experience, a high percentage of dollar store models lack UL
listing, while ballast-included (screw base) models other than dollar
store ones tend to have UL listing.
  In my experience, over 95% of dollar store models have worse color
rendering properties than the usual non-dollar-store models.  The really
worst in this area in my experience is a majority of the dollar store
"actually warm white" models.
  In my experience, a majority of dollar store models have what I consider
an icy cold bluish "daylight to bluish daylight" color, including some
that claimed "soft warm white light" and some more that some way or
another in-my-consideration imply a "sunny" color, and some more whose
"brand" is Sun Lighting.
  Worst of all, I have seen (in both my experience and experience stated
by closer friends of mine) dollar store CFLs to be significantly worse
than non-dollar-store CFLs in terms of malfunctioning in ways other than
just dying young, as well as dying young.

  My experience with dollar store CFLs is roughly 70 units, 57 "models",
19 "brands".  I spent roughly $70 to find nothing good to say and plenty
bad to say about dollar store CFLs, while finding non-dollar-store CFLs to
be much better.

  Usually death is from a filament/electrode having its thermionic
emission chemical coating wearing out.  The symptom is typically a
noticeable "major blackening/darkening" of the tubing around the expired
electrode, over a length of the tubing 1.5-2 times the diameter of the
tubing.  CFLs with integral electronic ballasts may or may not have their
ballasts croak when the dying electrode has just laid onto its deathbed
and made the electrical characteristics of the tubing part hard on the
ballast circuitry.  Occaisionally with integral-ballast (screw base) CFLs,
or more often than occaisionally when high adjacent air temperature is a
factor, the ballast can die before the "tubing part" dies.

 - Don Klipstein ([email])


text:
In article <zNIIh.8647$[email]>, Jeff wrote:

  I think Tim Smith made a poor choice of resistor values.  I would have
tried no fixed resistors at all, just the photoresistor.  My experience
is that compact fluorescents start with eyeball estimate 20-35% of their
full light output when the arc is first fully established.  Ones with 15
mm tubing tend to do better in this area in my experience, starting close
to half brightness.  But few CFLs have this, and many that do are by
Lights of America, and I have personally experienced more than a fair
share of problems with that brand.  Thankfully CFL torchieres often have
this tubing size.

 - Don Klipstein ([email])


text:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:11:53 GMT, KLS <[email]> wrote:

Technically speaking, if it's 15-watts it would be its predecessor,
the SLS15, but you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.  Its
closest match today is the 14-watt Marathon and although I can't
confirm this, the new base (ballast enclosure) may be slightly
smaller.  Again, it's an amazing performer.

Cheers,
Paul


text:
Tim Smith wrote:

The eye is logarithmic. In photography, one stop is twice the light and
the smallest increment that photographers are concerned with is 1/3 of a
stop. That's a much larger change that what you were measuring.

   Jeff


subject: Re: Compact fluorescents

text:
"Alan Sung" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Chances are you have an "amalgam" CFL.  Manufacturers don't distinguish
between amalgam and non-amalgam lamps; but the amalgam designs are generally
superior because they maintain maximum light output over a wider range of
ambient temperatures.  The downside is that they take several minutes more
to warm up to full output.

TKM


text:
"Don Klipstein" <[email]> wrote...

I second Don's experience with Lights of America.  They have been the
shortest-lived CFLs of any I have bought -- little or no better than
incandescents.  I will not buy them any more at any price.


text:
Hi Don,

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 05:15:13 +0000 (UTC), [email] (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

I agree that it's the ballast that's at risk, but within the confines
of a small, fully enclosed fixture, I suspect the operating
temperature, base up or base down, is not likely to be significantly
different either way; it's going to be hot not matter how you slice
it.

I fully agree with you on this.  The Philips SL CFLs are some of the
most rugged and dependable CFLs out there and are an excellent choice
in applications where heat can be a problem.  I have five SL lamps in
my home that have now clocked well over 15,000 hours of use and they
show no sign of quitting.  They're a little more expensive than some
of the other brands, but they offer exceptional value and I consider
them to be worth every penny.

Cheers,
Paul


author: Don K

text:
"Don Klipstein" <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

15 to 23 Watts could still be quite a lot of heat to dissipate, depending
on efficiency.

I wonder how much of that power comes out as visible light,
how much is radiated non-visible, and how much power ends up
heating the fixture?

Don


text:
In article <[email]>, Don K wrote:

  Roughly 18-20% becomes visible with a compact fluorescent, and roughly
5-6.5% becomes visible light with an incandescent.  1 watt of optical
output from a compact fluorescent has more lumens than one watt of optical
output from an incandescent.  A compact fluorescent may have 3 times the
radiometric efficiency of an incandescent at producing visible light, but
closer to 4 times the overall luminous efficacy.

  As for the remainder:  With an incandescent, this can break down roughly
50-50 between convected/conducted heat and infrared, but this varies.
Heat conduction by the fill gas is highest in moderately low wattages,
with roughly 25 watts per inch of visibly apparent filament length.  With
less than that, they use a vacuum.  UV accounts for maybe .1-.15% of the
input power.
  With a compact fluorescent, UV may be up to half a percent of the input
power.  Most of the other 80 or so percent becomes convected and conducted
heat.  A 42 watt spiral produces slightly more convected and conducted
heat than a 60 watt 120V incandescent.

 - Don Klipstein ([email])


text:
Don Klipstein wrote:

   Thanks Don,

   I always look forward to reading your posts. I just perused your
website and you know more about lighting than any 10 people I know (put
together).

   You may wish to update your site with some of the info that you've
posted here as you've obviously done more experimenting since much of
that was written. If you need an easier way to update this, let me know
as I write CMS (Content Management) and can donate some code.

   Working my way through your strobe articles.

   Jeff


text:
"Don Klipstein" <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

Thanks for the information!

Don


text:
Hi John,

I've had what can only be described as horrible luck with Lights of
America and, like you, I'll never buy any of their products again.
When people complain about their poor experiences with CFLs, I
automatically think "oh dear Lord, Lights of America".

I've used a variety of CFLs over the past twenty-three years and some
of my Philips lamps are now more than ten years old -- frankly, short
of unscrewing them from their sockets and smashing them on the ground,
these Philips lamps just won't die.

Cheers,
Paul

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:00:17 -0700, "John Weiss"
<jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote:


text:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:28:55 GMT, Paul M. Eldridge
<[email]> wrote:

Funny you mention this because I have an older Philips 15W CFL (the
type with the 3 parallel tubes) that has been running continuously for
a good 4 years now with no sign of fading.  This thing was given out
by the local electric company in the early 1990s, so I don't know how
much, if at all, it was used then, but we put it in service in our
house in May 2003, and it runs faithfully every evening in our foyer.


text:
In article <[email]>,
John Weiss <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote:

I wish we had trade embargoes on faulty-by-design products
since they're filling OUR garbage dumps with stuff that
should've never been manufactured in the first place.

And some of my globe-shaped Ikea CFLs were rather short-lived.
I guess they buy them from whatever mfgr's the best buy that week
since they can choose any mfgr worldwide.
I remember a guide to Sear's products for decoding the product number
to the original mfgr.  I wonder if Ikea has a similar coding.


author: [redacted]

text:
In article <[email]>,
 Paul M. Eldridge <[email]> wrote:

A third vote against Light of America, and a smiley face for Panasonic's
terrific (but expensive) globe CFLs.


text:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:04:31 GMT, KLS <[email]> wrote:

Thanks for sharing this; it's seems our own experiences and those of
Don and Harry closely match.  The three parallel tube design certainly
suggests this is another SL lamp, or what I consider to be the "gold
standard" of CFLs.  There are few things I recommend without
hesitation, but this just happens to be one of them.

Cheers,
Paul


text:
"Paul M. Eldridge" <[email]> wrote...
. . .

So far, my longest-lived CFLs are a pair from Ikea that were on sale for
$1.00 each, and have been running 24/7 outside my garage for about 4 years
now.

I have been replacing other, older, "multi-stick" CFLs with the spiral type
as they dim or flicker.  I have yet to have to replace any of the spirals.
They are of various brands (no LoA).


text:
Hi Jeff,

On 11 Mar 2007 19:12:44 -0400, [email] (Jeff Jonas) wrote:

I agree.  The lifespan of some of my LOA products could be measured in
minutes and in at least one case, **pop**, seconds.  I don't know if
they're still as bad as that because I haven't bought anything from
them in the past fifteen years (as it turns out, one of the few "never
again" resolutions I've never wavered on).

Good point.  I rave about my terrific experience with Philips, but
this is based on a narrow set of products, e.g., the SL lamps that are
(or use to be) made in Mexico.  I have no experience with their
"Twister" line, which I suspect is outsourced to some manufacturer
based in China (I honestly don't know this as a fact, but that would
be my guess).  That's the risk you take when making blanket
recommendations -- the quality of each and every item may not be
uniform and a change in supplier (or, more likely, one of the
supplier's sources) can result in some rather nasty surprises.

Cheers,
Paul


text:
Hi John,

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:03:10 -0700, "John Weiss"
<jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote:

I don't know much about the IKEA brand of CFLs.  I seem to recall the
reviews were mixed in terms of their colour rendering, but I have no
first hand experience to judge this (Don Klipstein would be the best
person to confirm this particular point).  In any event, fours years
service is pretty damn impressive -- i.e., 4 years x 8,760 hrs/yr =
35,040 hours, or the equivalent of 35 to 45 incandescent bulbs (each)
and counting!.

I still have some of my 7 and 9-watt single stick Philips PL lamps I
had purchased back in 1984.  They're been long since relegated to odd
ball places where they don't get a lot of use, but some twenty-three
years later they continue to fire up every time.

Cheers,
Paul


text:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:31:26 GMT, Paul M. Eldridge
<[email]> wrote:

I'll second that.  I have one SL18/R40 that sits on my side desk, it
has to be about 1988 vintage.  Back around then I was working for a
company that kept an entire string of 15 150 watt downlights in a hall
running 24/7.  I convinced them to swap out to the SL18s.  The savings
was substantial.  I think one had failed after more than a year of
use, and the rest just kept on going.  IIRC, I first learned about
them back in 1982 or 1983 and played around with a couple then.


text:
In article <[email]>,
Paul M. Eldridge  <[email]> wrote:

I just rediscovered that history.
The Fabric Warehouse near me has aisles of "other stuff"
such as halogen lamps, Capslytes and 13 W screw-in-ballasts.
At a dollar each, I bought a few,
and found ONE bulb that fit (for a dollar or 2).
The exit sign fluorescent retrofit kits were there
probably due to a misprint on the box:
it said 11-watt but only included a 9w ballast and 9w lamp.


text:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:03:43 -0500, [email] wrote:

Another pioneer!  Take a bow!

To some of us, a few lights in a hallway seems like such a small thing
but it's not.  A savings of 1.98 kW times 24 hours a day works out to
be 17,345 kWh/yr, plus perhaps an additional 4,000 to 5,000 kWh/yr in
related a/c savings.  That's enough energy to operate my entire home
for TWO YEARS, including heating and cooling.  Factor in the
additional savings in lamp replacement costs and labour and you can
see why they make good sense.

Cheers,
Paul


author: Michael Laudahn eOpposition

subject: Specialised newsgroup for russian railways?

text:
Does someone know the name for the russian railways newsgroup, even if it is
in russian only? I would like to discuss - or at least address - the ongoing
gauge difference issue between Russia/ex-Soviet Union and neighbouring
countries.

This appears to be a taboo topic in Russia so requires to be addressed from
outside to start things moving. Russia is in the process of renewing its
railways, so this would be the right moment not to continue cementing this
historic error, but use modern sleepers that would permit a later conversion
when the right moment is there.

It could also be asked if Russia shouldn't permit a standard-gauge link from
Estonia over St Petersburg to Finland if it wishes to remain connected in
broad gauge to Kaliningrad. I know that Estonia and Finland are broad-gauge
countries, but they are only because of their russian past, so need not
remain that way.


author: valtsu

subject: Re: Specialised newsgroup for russian railways?

text:
Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote:

No newsgroup, but two active mailing lists. The more active one is
called "1520mm" and is in Russian, and the less active one is "5feet" in
English. To join them visit: http://www.parovoz.com/1520mm/index-e.html
I've subscribed to both for more than a decade now.

Hardly a taboo. You are welcome to adress your views there using the
language of the list. English in the Russian language list is concidered
as spam, so please bear that in mind.

For starters you'll get angry feed-back if talk about "correcting a
historic error" as what refers to different gauges. But do try your luck!

As a Finn in Helsinki I don't see any need at all for a standard-gauge
link from Helsinki via St Petersburg to Tallinn. That would be a
distance of nearly 800 km. Right noe Finnish and Estonian authorities
have launched plans to expolre the feasebility of a direct rail tunnel
between these two cities, which are only 80 km apart. That would make
commuting between Helsinki and Tallinn just as easy as commuting between
Copenhagen and Malmï¿½ is today over the ï¿½resund bridge.

http://www.balticbusinessnews.com/Default2.aspx?ArticleID=2a7f79e3-980e-4ef1-99ae-182ec208c221

Btw, rail trafic to Kaliningrad does not go through Estonia.
See the Supermap on Steam Engine IS page -
http://www.parovoz.com/maps/supermap/supermap.php?X=C&Y=1&LANG=en

On the whole I see no point in regauging the Finnish railroads. Russia
certainly is not going to do that. Existing rail connections to the east
would be severely hampered with. The present gauge changing facilities
at the port of Turku and up north in Tornio/Haparanda are quite
sufficient for present-day needs. Actually I think that the Brits start
driving on the right side of the road sooner than Finns - or Russians -
start re-gauging their railroads to standard-gauge.

Timo


author: Lennart Petersen

text:
"Michael Laudahn eOpposition" <[email]>
skrev i meddelandet news:[email]...
--------
There're no such discussions and it's ridicolous to talk about a gauge
conversion.
The 1520/1524 net in the former USSR is around 150 000km long and in
addition there's more than 100 000km used by industry.   The freight flow
over to the standard gauge in western Europe  can't justify the enormous
amount of money to make a gauge conversion.

--------
Could be reason to remind that the gauge in Finland was a choice from
Finland itself, the alternative in discussion was narrow gauge.  In fact
there was no contact to the russian net until the late years of   ww.1
Today the main flow of international freight to/from Finland is to broad
gauge Russia,  just a little flow to Sweden over
Tornio-Haparanda  where there's a gauge conversion machine.
......


author: The Latest Breaking News: Hitler is still DEAD.

subject:
Specialised newsgroup for Russian railways? I want to troll there
	too...says Helicopter Michi, the cyber Nazi!

text:
"Michael AKA Helicopter Michi Lau-wahn eOpportunist spammer and
newsgroup terrorist spreads his field of trolling to ever more wider
hunting grounds.

<[email]>

Lovely fake e-mail address! How about nuking Cyber Nazis instead!

LOL

In other words you want to troll yet in an other newsgroup. Fuck off
Helicopter Michi Lauwarm. Cyber Nazis aren't welcome anywhere.
Your stupid propaganda you can keep to yourself!

Bullshit!
-------------------------------------------------------

Wer ist Michael Laudahn?
Ein Sozialabzocker und Asylant da in Dänemark....
UseNet Spammer, Nazi, mehr scheinst du Wixer nicht zu sein.

<> --
<> Proudly introducing the concept of HATE to the World
<> 'Freedom of speech - abuse it and then ban it!

The above is an excerpt from Helicopter Michi's membership application
sent to the Danish Branch of the Grand United European Neo and
Traditional Nazi Boys Club.

Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Boo" in the dark)
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!
Fup wie er es verdient!


text:
"valtsu" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ZDPzk.66557$[email]...

Are you aware of the fact that baltic states are pressed by the EU to
convert?

It runs through Lithuania. If they introduce standard gauge (see above), the
russian line could be converted as well.

Thanks for the info.

Regarding the gauge differences, I don't agree with you. All countries that
are visionary and open-minded do realise what an error a gauge different
from standard gauge is. Otherwise, countries like Spain and Portugal
wouldn't convert. Otherwise, countries in south-east Asia or parts of Africa
wouldn't make 1435 at least possible. To mention just the two examples that
come spontaneously to my mind.

This is exactly what I suggest: Leave the option open, by laying sleepers
that permit both gauges, so that you can convert lines when you're ready.
This is nowadays a totally mechanised process where thousands of kilometres
are done within days.

If you, however, refuse to start thinking about it in the first place, you
will certainly never get there.


text:
On Sep 16, 10:13 pm, "Michael Laudahn eOpposition"
<[email]> wrote:

I have to take Arthurs' view.

Wikipedia is *not* to be taken as a reliable source: if the page you
quote has references, then see if what you want is there in those
references; if there are no references then treat what wiki says
sceptically. Donl;t forget no matter who writes in wiki, someone else
can overwrite.

I also agree there are no plans and AFAIK no EU pressure to convert
the Baltic states. Once again - as you have already been told  - the
prime traffic in all 4 Baltic areas i.e. including Kaliningrad is
freight from Russia to Baltic sea ports. There is relatively not that
much traffic towards western Europe. I am speaking here with my Todays
Railways Consultant Editor hat on - we are not aware of any such plans
- and we've been on offical vists to both Lithunana and Latvia, and as
Kaliningrad won't change, thats 3 out of 4 I am sure on.

Can you quote a non-wiki (and none of those other searches that use
wiki) to support you claim that EU are ''pressing'' this.


text:
"Lüko Willms" <[email]> wrote:

Mr Laudahn was banned from editing Wiki quite some time ago.

Stop wasting your time debating the trash he posts in 132 newsgroup
day in day out (see his Google profile: http://tinyurl.com/55qy39)
He is not at all interested in railways and their gauges...he only
wants to spread his propaganda.

Cheers
Ördög


text:
Helicopter Michi said: "TROLL"

And so the abuse of other posters starts........

He certainly does. You mess up material written by others, than you
abuse those who want to stop you from doing it and then you get
banned! You should well know that from personal experience! LOL

<snip hubris, arrogance and insolence from Helicopter Michi Lau-wahn>

Whats up doc?
Loosing your cool, don't you?
Soon you will be calling everyone who is unsympathetic to your madness
dirty Jew or Muslims, won't you? That is what you have been already
doing in other newsgroups.

Ördög
(Your scary shadow that says "Boo" in the dark)


text:
Helicopter Michi Lau-wahn(the newsgroup terrorist who nukes everyone
disagreeing with him in his endless paranoid daydreams) is getting
really upset:

Bingo....so the name calling begins!

Ördög
(Your scary shadow that says "Boo" in the dark)


text:
Helicopter Michi Lauwarm rages on and on:

ROTFLOL

Hey Michi moron, you are the most plonked TROLL I have come across
over the years in all the newsgroups where your trash was posted!
German, Danish, Spanish, Italian or English groups it matters
not......you are plonked in them all.

Stop trolling and seek urgent professional treatment for your mental
condition.

Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Boo" in the dark)


text:
"Lennart Petersen" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5kUzk.2410$[email]...

THINK BIG: The russian network with its incompatible gauge is a huge
stumbling block on the eurasian landmass.

A gauge conversion is by no means ridiculous. There are adjustable sleepers
available today ('traviesa polivalente' in spanish) that permit automatic
conversion through a gauge conversion train of entire lines within few days.
The entire 'soviet' network could be converted within a few months, if well
planned ahead, and at affordable cost.

Instead of making 'fun' about Wikipedia, you ought to read their article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge . There you have the exact figures:
227 000 km 1520 network (Finland inclued), 720 000 km 1435 network. So the
1435 network is more than 3 times the 1520 network.

When railways were built, Finland was part of Russia. What choice did they
have?!


author: Lüko Willms

text:
Am Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:05:21 UTC,  schrieb "Lennart Petersen"
<[email]>  auf misc.transport.rail.europe :

  Mr. Laudahn does not fear to ridicule himself. He made a name in
many newsgroups as a notorious racist and anti-semite. No reason to
waste any second with that fool.

Cheers,
L.W.


text:
On Sep 16, 10:59 pm, "Lüko Willms" <[email]> wrote:
.
Noted.

He seems very argumentative too.


text:
Helicopter Michi the newsgroup terrorist has lost it completely:

You are an arrogant paranoid schizophrenic cyber Nazi troll with an
ugly agenda who is stirring up shit in well over hundred newsgroups
disrupting normal on topic discussions with constant spam and abuse.

Ördög
(Your scary shadow that says "Boo" in the dark)


text:
"+GF+" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email]...

Huh ?!


author: Arthur Figgis

text:
Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote:

Are they? Why? And if so, what about Ireland, Spain and Portugal? Not to
mention all the various 1m and 2'6" gauge lines still around. And the
Glasgow subway.

But in SE Asia it would break the network effect if one place changed
from metre gauge.

India is firmly 5'6".

New Zealand, southern Africa?

Maybe western Europe could convert to broad gauge? A line to Vienna
keeps raising its head.


author: Graeme Wall

text:
In message <[email]>
          "Michael Laudahn eOpposition"
<[email]> wrote:

The standard gauge lines in Spain are dedicated high speed lines.  Far from
the 'several' lines you claim, possibly only one or two will cross the
Spanish-Portuguese border within the forseeable future.

Create facts?  That certainly seems to be the problem with your arguements.
One doesn't create facts unless one is a politician.

So you keep ranting, but altering the track is only a fraction of the work
involved in gauge changing.  You have not addressed the other issues at all.


author: Brian Rumary

text:
Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote:

There is nothing inherently superior in standard gauge as opposed to say 5ft
gauge. It's only an error if you are likely to connect through to a country
with that standard gauge. For instance there is no reason to convert the
railways of the Indian sub-continent from 5ft 6in, as those countries have no
rail connection to standard gauge countries, and there seems little chance
that they will have such connections in future. The same applies to Japan,
Indonesia or New Zealand - all 3ft 6in gauge countries.

Brian Rumary, UK

www.rumary.co.uk


text:
Am Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:30:15 UTC,  schrieb D7666 <[email]>
auf misc.transport.rail.europe :

  Have you checked if not Mr. Laudahn has written those items in
Wikipedia himself?

cheers,
L.W.


text:
"D7666" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email]...

This is getting ridiculous: I have so far only met people opposing my view.
These are not real-world conditions.

You opponents seem to be organised. I'm having grwoing problems to take this
debate serious.


text:
Am Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:54:34 UTC,  schrieb "The Latest Breaking News:
Hitler is still DEAD." <[email]>  auf
misc.transport.rail.europe :

  I know the guy.

Cheers,
L.W.


text:
"Michael Laudahn eOpposition" <[email]>
skrev i meddelandet news:[email]...
Including North America,Australia and so on.....
But instead of Wikipedia I'm claiming my "exact figures" from "Jane's world
Railways" and "Railway Directory & Year Book"  probably somewhat more
reliable sources.
And to claim that  a gauge conversion can be made in months....  that's just
laughable.

------
And here  we can see that you've no knowledge of the history of Finland.
Finland have never been part of Russia,  Finland was between 1809 and 1917
an independent principality  sharing the same leader as Russia but having
their own Parliament, their own currency and their own economy.  As said it
was the decision from Parliament of Finland to finance and build railways in
Finland.
Try to read the book "Alameri:  Eisenbahnen in Finnland" and you'll find out
a lot of why broad gauge was chosen.  But in fact there was no connection to
the Russian net.


text:
In message <[email]>
          "Michael Laudahn eOpposition"
<[email]> wrote:

A stumbling block for what?  There is precious little rail traffic on offer
between Europe and Mongolia, anywhere else in Asia it is easier and cheaper
to send goods by sea.  The main traffic on Russian railways is internal
movement of goods and people.  For that there is no advantage in going
through all the upheaval of changing the gauge.

So you can alledgedly change all the tracks with ease, but what about the
rolling stock?  Last time that was changed on any great scale it took 10
years.

Totally irrelevant, track gauge is not the only factor, especially when taken
in isolation.


text:
"Lï¿½ko Willms" <[email]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email]...
Thanks for that information.


text:
"Lï¿½ko Willms" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email]...

The mask is coming down off the ugly german communist's grimace.


text:
"Arthur Figgis" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email]...

Yes, I read so several times, in reliable sources.

You ask?! I don't have to explain you the advantages of a uniform gauge, do
I? Just imagine you would have to change bogies at the Channel tunnel,
instead of just rushing through.

Ireland is an island. If it ever were connected to Britain, it would most
probably adapt. That would be fairly easy, regarding its 1600 mm and today's
technology.

Spain builds all its new lines in 1435. Where they still use the iberian
gauge, they use sleepers that have mounting positions for both gauges.
(Partially, they also mount a third rail at standard-gauge distance.) This
type of sleepers permits mechanised track conversion. Thousands of
kilometres can be converted within days.

Portugal has no choice but continue building the 1435 lines Spain delivers
them.

Not to

I assume this is supposed to be funny?

Its like saying, a glass is half full, if you also can say, it's half empty.
In other words: You start one place, and others will follow.

Yeah. They appear equally stubborn as the russians, at least in this issue.

That's a mountainous country (at least the southern island) where narrow
gauge was easier to build.

The new Gauteng train will be in 1435. Also, in south east Africa, the
development seems to go towards 1435. You'll find lots of useful info on
this subject if you start reading at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge

and go from there.

'Joking' again? It's getting boring, I'm afraid.


text:
"Arthur Figgis" <[email]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email]...
-----
They're not.  And I've not seen any serious discussion about a gauge
conversion in the Baltic states.  Their main freight volumes are from/to
Russia in the east-west direction.
Very little traffic in the north-south direction.     Estonia have lost one
of two connections to Latvia (Moisakula) and the other ( Valga) have a small
flow of freight only.


text:
"Graeme Wall" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email]...

Why do you say 'possibly only one or two '? At least two are certain, at
this stage. More aren't unlikely, considering the spanish enthusiasm.

So?

'Ranting'? Do you think the spaniards haven't solved these problems while
converting their gauge?

To summarize it again: It CAN be done, also in the russian case. It all
depends on your attitude.


author: Jerry

text:
"Graeme Wall" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<snip>

Anyway, changing track gauge is not so simple - unless one is talking
about plain track - every turn-out/switch/point (take your pick of
terms for the same thing) and crossing will need to be rebuilt from
the sleeper-bed upwards and outwards...


text:
Brian Rumary wrote:

Bam - Zahedan might not be too far off. Though the break of gauge is
probably the least of the problems with travelling through Turkey, Iran
and Pakistan to India, and there will still be a ferry leg across Lake Van.

  The same applies to Japan,


text:
"Lï¿½ko Willms" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email]...

Oh, the infamous german communist again.


text:
Am Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:50:39 UTC,  schrieb "Michael Laudahn
eOpposition" <[email]>  auf
misc.transport.rail.europe :

  Das ist das Schicksal von Geisterfahrern.

  On the contrary.

  Dann nix wie weg und zurï¿½ck in die braune Piï¿½ecke.

L.W.


text:
Lennart Petersen wrote:

Quite true. The Finnish and Russian networks were connected as late as
1912 when the Finlyandski railway bridge was built over the Neva River.
VR owned and operated the stretch between the border of the Grandutchy
of Finland and the northern embankment of River Neva up until 1917. The
rail terminal is still called Finlyandsky railway station.

It has to be said, that the Russians - Nikolayevsky Railroad, the
predecessor of present day Oktyabrski rr - was not as keen as VR to
establish the link over the Neva, so the bridge was funded mainly by the
Finnish government as it was much needed for Finnish trade.

The dual-gauge rail link over the Torne River to Sweden at
Haparanda/Tornio was built much later.


text:
"Lennart Petersen" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:89Wzk.2415$[email]...

So what you say is that the figurs presented by Wiki are wrong? What figures
does Jane's give?

Have you read about adjustable sleepers and mechanic gauge conversion? I
suggest you do.

It is quite possible that your detail knowledge of Finland and it's history
is better than mine.

Still you admit that Finland was closely related to Russia at the time when
they started to construct railways. And of course, already at that period in
history, they will have thought of a later connection to neighbouring
networks. So yes, they may not have 'received an order from Moscow/St
Petersburg', but the facts established by Russia plus geography probably
made them take their gauge decision. An early case of 'finlandisation', if
you will.   >.)


text:
"Graeme Wall" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email]...

Seen under the present condition, a stumbling block for unimpeded (by gauge
breaks) asian/european rail-borne trade. That's the reason why the
standard-gauge link is built between China and Europe, along the southern
russian border. Apart from that, Russia is free to join in railway
transporting, as soon as they're ready to ship something the other
participants are interested in.

'Last time'? Please be specific. You're just spreading rumours.

The gauge conversion in the southern states of the US after the civil war
was done within days - after due preparation of course.

Again, just allusions, no arguments. Is your mere intention to produce a
certain predetermined mood?


text:
In message <[email]>
          "Michael Laudahn eOpposition" <[email]> wrote:

I think you will find that line is being projected for political, rather than
practical reasons.

Such as?  Currently Russia's commercial transport requirements with the
outside world are better served by pipelines or sea than railways.
Internally there is no advantage to them in changing the rail gauge.  What
relatively small amount a of cross-border railtraffic that does exist can be
adequately handled by existing multi-gauge stock at a fraction of the cost of
rebuilding and re-equipping their whole rail network.

Does the date 21-22 May 1892 mean anything to you?

Covered a very small route mileage and the motive power and rolling stock had
to replaced anyway as much of the existing stock had been destroyed in the
hostilities.  The replacement stock came, initially, from the northern states
as they had built up a surplus to cope with the wartime traffic requirements.
With the simple lightweight trackage used at that period, gauge changing was
the easy option, especially as you had an excess of cheap labour available
for a short period.  Hardly the situation with Russia in the 21st Century.


text:
In message <[email]>
          "Michael Laudahn eOpposition" <[email]> wrote:

Congratulations on stating the blindingly obvious, now find some practical
reasons for building the line.

If you'd written your sentence properly I might have seen that.  However you
didn't.

Possibly far more tha  you could possibly imagine, however I'll take that as
a no.

????

A wonderfully contradictory and chronologically implausable arguement.

[snip]

So you can quote great chunks of a Wikipedia articel.  Do you actually have
point to make?

I haven't forgotten anything, on the contrary you are persistently ignoring
the inconvenient facts that the Russians don't want to regauge, the Russians
don't need to regauge and the Russians can't afford to regauge.  However
carry on 'creating facts' if it pleases you.

Is that supposed to be English?  And would you mind not shouting, I'm trying
to sleep.

I am not a group, therefore I don't suffer from 'group dynamics' which
sounds mildly unpleasant.

What issue is considered unpleasant?  I thought we were discussing the
rational of gauge changes.  I don't see anything unpleasant in that.


text:
"Lennart Petersen" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:WuWzk.2416$[email]...

In other words, if a german communist lets you know that I have an anti
third-world immigration stance, then my pro standard-gauge arguments can be
dismissed?

Where is the logic? How low can you go?


text:
Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote:

Cite, please. Whatever Wikipedia is, it's not a reliable source.

What would be the point? The amount of stuff waiting to be shipped from
western Europe to the Baltic states must be rather smaller than the
amount of stuff from 1520-land needing access to the sea.

Traffic on the existing lines _between_ the Baltic states isn't exactly
going to confuse anyone into thinking they are looking at Clapham
Junction in the morning peak. A scheme for a Talgo service from Berlin
never happened, so regauging seems a bit silly.

How about, say, putting the effort into getting HSL Zuid to work first?
ERTMS would be far more use than regauging the Baltics.

Imagine if you had to build special trains because of the safety
regulations, types of traffic were restricted, and the loading gauge at
one side was rather small. Oh, hang on....

Imagine if freight was carried in boxes which could be moved between
trains on different gauges, or even lorries and ships. Ah.

Someone in the freight world once told me that technical matters like
gauge were a minor issue, as long as all the paperwork needs to be in
both the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets, and you can't be sure that what
goes into Belarus will emerge from the other side intact.

Tell that to the Bilbao metro, which joins with an existing metre-gauge
line.

No (well, except Glasgow). There is a fair chunk of metre gauge in
Europe, even if the remaining 2'6"ish is a bit of a backwater. Look at
the north of Spain.

Or they will just buy some lorries and save all the hassle.

And totally incompatable with anything for hundreds of miles. It is even
to a UK loading gauge, which seems really bizarre. Maybe they are hoping
for a Morocco - Dover tunnel, bypassing most of the Continent. Don't
fancy that on a train with no loos.

Is it the ""original research" or the "unverified claims" that I should
be looking at?

Much of Africa has rather better things to do with its money than break
up the current network. Zimbabwe can't afford the juice for the electric
locos, how would it rebuild? Southern Sudan has bigger problems than its
neighbours having metre gauge railways.

Anyone can propose a high speed line anywhere, but can they fund it?

Ah, so it is just that crazy Slovak sense of humour:

Broad gauge to Austria
03 May 2008
EUROPE: A protocol setting out plans to study the feasibility of
extending a 1 520 mm gauge line to Bratislava and Wien has been signed
by the national railways of Slovakia, Austria, Ukraine and Russia. The
hope is that a through broad gauge route will help to attract freight
traffic from Asia to Europe to the railways.

The study agreed on March 28 will look into the technical and financial
feasibility of modernising and extending the broad gauge line which was
built to transport iron ore from the Ukraine to steel works at Kosice in
eastern Slovakia.

RZD President Vladimir Yakunin told a press conference in Bratislava
that the cost is estimated at US$4ï¿½3bn, which could be met by the four
national railways. A business plan will be prepared in 2009 setting out
the project timescales and investments required.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2008/05/8399/broad_gauge_to_austria.html


text:
"Lennart Petersen" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:H8Uzk.2408$[email]...

?

Read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge ,

to start with.


text:
Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote:
Of course it can be done, but why? If through-trafic from/to 1520mm area
from/to 1435mm area is only 0,001% of total trafic volume within 1520mm
area and could increase to max 0,002% if the tracks would be regauged?
Why should the billions be spent? To get our souls saved?

This whole debate is starting to look like the Pope in Vatican
addressing abortion or gay marriage issues.


text:
Am Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:27:08 UTC,  schrieb "Michael Laudahn
eOpposition" <[email]>  auf
misc.transport.rail.europe :

  They have _not_ converted their gauge. They have done two things:

a) built new high-speed lines with UIC-gauge and 25 kV~50 Hz instead
of 3 kV=.

b) built trains with variable gauge, switching from UIC-gauge to
Iberian gauge automatically within a few minutes; the trains running
at 15 km/h or so thru the changer.

  No need to convert the existing network.

L.W.


text:
"Lï¿½ko Willms" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email]...

You're an infantile german postwar leftist, Lï¿½ko Willms. Be glad nobody
seems to be able to read and understand your german-language outpours.
Otherwise, most of them would plonk you right away.


text:
Am Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:42:39 UTC,  schrieb valtsu <[email]>
 auf misc.transport.rail.europe :

  Makes me think of the Fehmarn Belt bridge financed completely by
Denmark.

Cheers,
L.W.


author: tobias benjamin koehler

text:
Michael Laudahn eOpposition schrieb:

Border control procedures take much longer than either changing the
rolling stock (even the old fashioned way by changing the bogies) or
reloading the cargo (containers) on another train.

The 1520 mm area is just too big to convert. Only a small part of the
traffic is crossing the gauge barrier. Even if everything was changed to
1435 mm, there would still be a lot of rolling stock that can operate
only in the ex-1520 mm area because their loading gauge is much more
generous.

That connection is built for political reasons, so that Russia doesn't
have a monopoly on transcontinental trade.

How much was it, and how much rolling stock did they have to convert?

Look at Spain, which is much smaller, and has embarked the adventure of
gauge conversion which will mean many decades of having two incompatible
gauges in the same country.

I think that a better investment would be:

* System-wide introduction of automatic couplers in all countries still
using the screw coupler

* Implementation of automatic gauge-changing systems. (A multitude of
those exists, but none are currently in regular use between 1435 mm and
1520 mm)

toby


text:
"Graeme Wall" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email]...

You need politics to implement international arrangements serving practical
purposes. Does this amaze you?

If you read my sentence properly, then you see that you could have saved
yourself this reply. I already said it all.

Does the date 31 May 1886 mean anything to you?

United States

Originally, various gauges were used in the United States and Canada. Some
railways, primarily in the northeast, used standard gauge; others used
gauges ranging from 4 ft (1,219 mm) to 6 ft (1,829 mm). Given the nation's
recent independence from the United Kingdom, arguments based on British
standards had little weight. Problems began as soon as lines began to meet
and in much of the north-eastern United States, standard gauge was adopted.
Most Southern states used 5 ft (1,524 mm) gauge. Following the American
Civil War, trade between the South and North grew and the break of gauge
became a major economic nuisance. Competitive pressures had forced all the
Canadian railways to convert to standard gauge by 1880, and Illinois Central
converted its south line to New Orleans to standard gauge in 1881, putting
pressure on the southern railways.

After considerable debate and planning, most of the southern rail network
was converted from 5 ft (1,524 mm) gauge to 4 ft 9 in (1,448 mm) gauge, then
the standard of the Pennsylvania Railroad, over two remarkable days
beginning on Monday, May 31, 1886. Over a period of 36 hours, tens of
thousands of workers pulled the spikes from the west rail of all the broad
gauge lines in the South, moved them 3 inches (76 mm) east and spiked them
back in place. The new gauge was close enough that standard gauge equipment
could run on it without problem. By June, 1886, all major railroads in North
America were using approximately the same gauge. The final conversion to
true standard gauge took place gradually as track was maintained. [2]

In the early days of rail transport in the United States, railroads tended
to be built out of coastal cities into the hinterland, and systems did not
connect. Each builder was free to choose its own gauge, although the
availability of British-built locomotives encouraged some railroads to be
built to standard gauge. As a general rule, southern railroads were built to
one or another broad gauge, mostly 5-foot (1.5 m), while northern railroads
that were not standard-gauge tended to be narrow-gauge. When American
railroads' track extended to the point that they began to interconnect, it
became clear that a single nationwide gauge would be a good idea. In 1886,
the southern railroads agreed to coordinate changing gauge on all their
tracks over two days, beginning May 31, 1886. They chose a 4-foot-9-inch
(1.4 m) gauge that was then used by the Pennsylvania Railroad. Those tracks
were gradually reduced the remaining half inch to standard gauge later.[3]
Now, the only broad-gauge rail systems in the United States are some city
transit systems, notably BART.

In modern uses certain isolated occurrences of non-standard gauges can still
be found, such as the 5 ft 2ï¿½ in (1,581 mm) and 5 ft 2ï¿½ in (1,588 mm) gauge
tracks of the Philadelphia streetcars, the Philadelphia subway cars and the
New Orleans streetcars. The Bay Area Rapid Transit system in the San
Francisco Bay Area, chose 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) gauge. The San Francisco
cable cars use the cape gauge of 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_gauge#United_States

Again you forgot that americans then didn't dipose of the technical
possibilities the russians would dispose of today - if they only wanted to.

So: IT'S A MIND THING. The rest is just rationalising, in order to save
you - i e your group ('group dynamics') - from dealing with an issue
considered unpleasant.


text:
Am Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:17:57 UTC,  schrieb Graeme Wall
<[email]>  auf misc.transport.rail.europe :

  This would be like the Betouwe Route in the Netherlands.

  And also: building a new line is not the same as converting existing
ones. If there is enough traffic for such a UIC-gauge line from China
to Western Europe, let them build it. On the other hand, it makes
sense to extend the existing 1520-mm-wide line to Kosice to Bratislava
and Vienna.

  What does _not_ make sense is trying, or forcing, to convert the
whole world's railways to one and the same track gauge. Even in
railway country Switzerland they have lots of narrow track railways,
e.g. the Rhï¿½tische Bahn (RhB) in Grischun (Graubï¿½nden). Why not?

Cheers,
L.W.


text:
"Arthur Figgis" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email]...

Official EU material. I didn't put down the URLs. You should be able to find
it for yourself.

Don't you make things a little too easy for you? If you knew Wikipedia for
yourself, you knew that there a lots of knowledgeable people.

Think BIG. Russia lies between China and Europe. Railway-wise, it is a huge
and stubborn obstacle. It wouldn't have to be, regarding todays's technical
possibilities (adjustable sleepers; check the spanish term 'traviesa
polivalente', you'll find many texts and photos).

My recent information was that test rides would start in september. Haven't
they started?

It's not a question of either - or.

Look - I'm certainly not without humour. But your nonsense-style 'humour'
won't get you nowhere with me. Don't claim that nobody told you.   >.)

? Do you wish to be taken serious?

Idem.

(Ahem)

It's a start heading in the right direction. 'Even the longest voyage starts
with the first step.' You don't really know what vision and similar things
are, do you?

It is even

My god, he's on his 'humour' track again. Can anyone convert him back to
standard track?

Look at the Wiki link I gave you (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge ), and proceed from there.

So what? It's the same things like, let's say, a german electric overhead
wire doesn't stop at the border but runs to the next station inside the
neighbouring country, where the system change is (or was) easier made than
at the border.

By the way, had you read the Wiki article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge , you would know that the 1520
network has a length of 227 000 km (incl Finland), while the worldwide
standard-gauge network is 720 000 km. That's more than 3 times.


text:
"Michael Laudahn eOpposition" <[email]>
skrev i meddelandet news:[email]...
Yes to start with :
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.

Anyway whoever in a serious discussion refers to Wikipedia ?
And what does it say that contradicts me ?


text:
"valtsu" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ZD6Ak.67011$[email]...

You confuse cause and consequence. You have a hidden agenda, I assume. This
debate is useless because you and others don't wish it to proceed.


text:
"valtsu" <[email]> wrote in message
news:ZD6Ak.67011$[email]...
<snip>

It would be cheaper to trans-ship containers, or swap-out bogies,
especially were labour (to the end shipper) is cheap - hmm, isn't that
were this thread came in?...


text:
valtsu wrote:

At least the holy father's railway is standard gauge :)

Serious question - how many km of line has Spain actually converted? Not
built from new, not laid with convertible sleepers, not discussed in the
pages of El Trainspotterro Monthly, but actually converted?


text:
"Lï¿½ko Willms" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email]...

Childist communist moron of german origin. They have taken the decision to
convert their entire network until 2020. Read Via Libre. Spanish would be an
advantage.


text:
Lï¿½ko Willms wrote:

We'll know when it turns out to be made entirely from very small plastic
bricks :-)


text:
"tobias benjamin koehler" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:82efc$48d0fe64$5473814c$[email]...

Agreed. The european automatic coupler does exist, see

http://www.ba-bautzen.de/wirtschaftssenioren/amk/ .

It waits to be introduced on a large scale.

No. Nonsense.

Sorry, but everything considered, you're just another simple mind without
visionary capability. Go away, you bore me.


text:
Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote:

Hmmmmmmm. So that's a "No".

If it is true, why haven't Today's Railways, Continental Railway Journal
et al spotted this?

Yes. And even more loonies, nutters, and people with time on their
hands. And they can often shout loudest.

A /British Rail/ Class 377?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_377

Russia has rather a lot of railway traffic as it is.

The gauge wasn't a big enough obstacle to stop a freight train from
China to Hamburg a few months ago. Finding traffic which is justifies a
higher cost than shipping but lower speeds than air might be trickier.

Not that I've heard. And I've only seen photos of an Albatross in Velim
so far.

It is if you don't have the money.

Not humour, just facts.

Go and have a look if you don't believe me. It is even on Wikipedia (at
the moment!).

Why bother going metre-standard-metre in SE Asia, when you already have
metre all the way?  The problem with linking Thailand with India is not
gauge, it is Myanmar, the Billy-No-Mates of the international community
(plus possibly some historic sensitivity about the route).

Vision has its place. If I was a railway design engineer in an office in
1940s Berlin, I'd be all in favour of visionary gauge projects.

But not now. Ask the man on the Clapham Junction train how much
disruption he would like so that his train has the same gauge as one in
Ulaan Bator.

If the Iron Rhine is too difficult, North of London Eurostar impossible,
   the wiggly line between Bosnia and Croatia moribund, and we have a
world of Bushes, Putins and <insert name of Georgian chap>, re-gauging
Russia can go in the "to do" tray for a long time.

It doesn't matter what gauge Estonia is if there is dubious railway
politics going on and the traffic has gone. The problems of Chunnel
freight are not because Belarus is broad gauge.

Nope, Gautrain rolling stock really is the same profile as UK stock. Not
some sensible European profile, but UK sizes. Maybe Bombardier offered
it cheap to keep the Derby production lines ticking over, or something.

An article which even the 'pediaphiles have labelled "This article or
section may contain original research or unverified claims."

If Japan with all its wealth can survive with Cape gauge, Mozambique
must be able to as well.

You need a better map!

Much of it in the Americas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_bridge (happy with the source)
"the construction of such a bridge or tunnel would face unprecedented
engineering, political, and financial challenges, and to date, no
government has authorized the start of any planning or construction."

And while I've seen mention of proposals for a Korea - Japan tunnel,
I've never seen a suggestion for a tunnel to Australia.


text:
"Lennart Petersen" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:EHUzk.2411$[email]...

I told Arthur Figgis already: You make things too easy for yourself if you
try to disqualify all of Wikipedia right from the start. The only possible
conclusion then is that you are not interested in a serious discussion. Why?
Well, you apparently have motives why you don't like the subject, so you
attempt to make things look bad, ridiculous etc.


text:
"Michael Laudahn eOpposition"
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<snip>

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!


text:
"Arthur Figgis" <[email]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email]...
------
AFAIK they've converted Zaragoza-Huesca (around 80km)  with three rail to
allow standard gauge to allow one (in the weekend two) AVE to run
Madrid-Huesca


text:
Am Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:39:07 UTC,  schrieb Arthur Figgis
<[email]>  auf misc.transport.rail.europe :

  And what about the narrow gauge lines? FEVE (Ferrocarriles Espaï¿½oles
de Vï¿½a Estrecha) unites 1250 km of lines narrower than the Iberian
track gauge (750 mm, 915 mm, 1000 mm, 1062 mm and 1435 mm), mostly
operated by regional units, like EuskoTren, FGC (Barcelona,
Generalitat de Catalunya), FGV en Valencia, and on Mallorca, but also
some other regional networks.

Cheers,
L.W.


subject: Re: Iberian re-gauging (was: Re: Specialised newsgroup for russian  railways?)

text:
Am Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:39:07 UTC,  schrieb Arthur Figgis
<[email]>  auf misc.transport.rail.europe :

  None that I know of, but actually Fomento, i.e. the Spanish ministry
of infrastructure and transport, does have as one of its goals in the
rail policies, "Definiciï¿½n de una estrategia para el cambio de ancho
en la red convencional", i.e. the "definition of a strategy to change
the track gauge of the conventional railway network", which I repeat
myself, does certainly exclude the narrow gauge rail network, which
makes up about one tenth of the Spanish network overall[1]. This is
specified in this list
where one finds also the link to a PDF document which they say expands
that information.

  According to an article in El Paï¿½s dated April 30, 2007,
Fomento is working on a study how to do it.

  Now, the rail network in Spain administered by Adif (the
infrastructure company) amounts to only 12'991 km (at the end of 2006,
according to UIC statistics, including the standard gauge HSLs), which
is much much less than the 1520 mm networks in the former USSR and
Finland, and Spain is much more integrated within the European union
than Russia, so to say...

  Of course, a gauge conversion from Iberian track gauge to UIC track
gauge would have to include the Portuguese network of 2839 km, in
order not to create new incompatabilities. So two countries would have
to agree on a common strategy... If that actually takes place -- who
knows. According to this article in El Paï¿½s, Spanish king Alfonso 13
already tried to get the track gauge converted, but the railway
companies stalled and then came the First World war. Remember: the
Fomento strategic directive is "to define a strategy", not yet
"actually change the gauge".

  BTW, according to the El Paï¿½s article, there are already gauge
changing installations for CAF and/or Talgo trains at 12 places in
Spain, four of them with both technologies. This is for passenger
trains, while the process is not so easy for freight trains, even in
Transfesa's plants which do it very fast.

Cheers,
L.W.

[1]According to the UIC statistic, besides the Adif administered
network there are three narrow gauge networks:
- Euskotren with 180 km
- FEVE with 1194 km
- FGC (Ferrocarriles de la Generalitat de Catalunya) with 270 km


text:
"Michael Laudahn eOpposition"
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<snip>

Stop talking about yourself, cretin.

Pot, stop trying to call the kettle black...


text:
Michael Laudahn eOpposition schrieb:

If you want your arguments to be taken serious, stop insulting all
others please. Thanks.


text:
Arthur Figgis wrote:
The ERA - European Railway Agency web site is certainly more reliable
than Wikipedia without references. Regauging of 1520/1524 mm to 1435 mm
is not an issue. Have a look:
http://www.era.europa.eu/public/core/interoperability/Pages/CRTSI_1520mmsystem.aspx


text:
"Arthur Figgis" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email]...

How dare you? You are just too lazy to do the searching work for yourself.
I'm not obliged to archive EU publications.

And moreover, you continue to give me an impression that you just argue for
arguing sake. You don't really have a point.

Ask them. Media are problematic, we all should know. I used to have a
subscription for a well-known railway magazine and cancelled it later,
because I wasn't content with the way it inflated uninteresting news while
almost bypassing big events.

So in other words, you don't know how Wikipedia works. The simple fact is
that their non-political articles are quite reliable. Also research has
shown it, as published by the media. Articles of political significance,
however, ought to be consumed with a teaspoon of salt, because of some bias.
And then, down on their pages they always indicate non-Wikipedia sources. Or
are they also compromised for you, just because the Wiki author mentioned
them?

You continue your small-scale thinking patterns.

It is big enough an obstacle to have led to the (ongoing) construction of a
standard-gauge track between China and Europe along the southern russian
border.

Then listen again. I read it in a dutch newspaper a few weeks ago. Why
should they have cancelled the test rides? Do you think they construct a
bilion-euro high-speed ine in order to let it rot away?

Russia not having money? Now you're really getting ridiculous.

Very disproportionate ones, and presented with a clearly malicious ulterior
motive.

Idem.

This is just too foolish. I don't have time for this. You're a troll,
obviously. Do you want me to notify http://www.troll-transport.at/ ? This
will be the last thing I can do for you, unfortunately. Farewell.


author: Jishnu Mukerji

text:
Arthur Figgis wrote:

Besides if/when Thailand and India manage to connect up there will not
be any standard gauge involved. The gauges involved will be Metre and
Broad (1667mm).


author: Richard Mlynarik

subject:
Re: Iberian re-gauging (was: Re: Specialised newsgroup for russian
 railways?)

text:
Lennart Petersen wrote, On 2008-09-18 07:31:

[...]

Just because it is interesting, here is (or was, as of a year or so
ago) a schematic of the mixed gauge plan for Valencia:

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8409/dscn1681qp1.jpg

Red is old Iberian gauge (1600mm) for the cercanías (S-Bahn),
blue is 1435mm standard gauge
green is mixed.

See also the more geographical overview
http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/1945/dscn1684lr2.jpg

What a tangle!


text:
"valtsu" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:v_1Ak.66851$[email]...

Can you read portuguese? I found anarticle written by their railway engineer
society, about two years ago, written after a visit to Brussels, where (in
that article) they triumphantly proclaimed that they had been allowed to
maintain their iberian gauge.

Seen from today's point of view, Spain will deliver several standard-gauge
lines right to their border, within the very foreseeable future. In what
gauge do you think the portuguese will continue constructing them?

The same thing would be true for the 1520 block: Create facts. Then their
rusty minds will start moving again.

It CAN be done. The solution is called *adjustable sleeper* (if this is the
english term; in spanish it's called 'traviesa polivalente', you can find
texts and images via Google). First, the tracks are mounted in the old
gauge. When conversion day has arrived, a track conversion train rolls over
the line chosen, automatically converting it to standard gauge. It does it
at am amazing speed: Entire lines are done within a couple of days.


text:
Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote:

The onus is on you to justify your claims. Living in Britain, I've seen
rather too many "EU to do <something spurious>" claims with no evidence
provided.

"a well-known railway magazine" - do you have a morbid fear of quoting
sources? Maybe a footnote once stole your sweeties?

I'll concede that its listings of cultural references in the Simpsons is
pretty impressive.

I think you will find that politics are a major part of the modern
railway. Do you think the border controls at Brussels Midi are because
Eurostar thinks they are a really good idea, or are they because of
politics?

Many Britons think that a link to France is bad enough, throwing open
the eastern EU border would be worse - and if you are going to stop for
customs, well, in that case the gauge isn't all that much of a problem.

Politics again (is it actually happening, anyway, or was it just talk by
the *stans to scare the Russians?)

Liege - Germany, anyone?

HSL Zuid is running rather late. The trains aren't ready, and there were
acronym-heavy problems with the Dutch and Belgian signals not talking to
each other.

But would they like to spend it making their railway compatible with
Luxembourg, or on repairing the roads, building schools-n-hospitals, on
arms, or vodka?

How about a Whale Tanker? http://www.whale.co.uk/
Not seen any trolls on a train, but the Flaam railway has its own huldra
(according to Wikipedia).

You seem to be overlooking the fact that railways are there for moving
people and stuff, not for meeting specifications. Real-world politics
can't simply be ignored as an awkward inconvenience. Like the man
seeking directions in Ireland, ideally we wouldn't start from here - but
we have to.


author: Joe Gorberg

subject: Comments on Mutual Fund Report?

text:
Anyone have any comments or followed the recommendations of the NoLoadX Mutual
Fund report.  It is published monthly and rates 1000s of No Load Mutual Funds.
The report ranks the funds in 5 categories, and according to the literature,
they had an annual return >20% for the last 10 years before tax by investing in
growth funds. How have they done in the past 1 to 3 years?  Are there any better
reports/newsletters?  Any and all comments are welcome.

Thanks.

Joe Gorberg
[email]


author: Crazy Pyro

subject: Re: Comments on Mutual Fund Report?

text:
In article <[email]>
[email] (Joe Gorberg) writes:

   I just subscribed to this newsletter.  I received my first month's copy
last week.  Eventually I'm going to try and follow their advice with a little
bit of cash.  They rate all the noload funds and some loload funds.  They give
performance for 1 year, 6 months, 3 months and 1 month.  Somehow they rate
each fund for each of these periods(each period is given an equal weight) and
list the top 5 in four different investment categories.  You are supposed to
own one or more of the top 5 funds at all times.  When your fund drops out of
the top 5, you are supposed to replace it with one in the top 5.  They claim
that this usually doesn't require a tremendous amount of switches, but who
knows.  I don't know how well their strategy really works.  It sounds logical
but I don't think a fund's performance a year ago has much benefit for its
performance today.  I'm more inclined to look at a fund's recent 3 or 6 month
performance to see if its doing well.  If I do invest using their advice I
might not follow it exactly.  I will probably pick the funds that have the
best 3 and 6 month returns.  It's nice having each funds performances listed
like this and having them numbered in order of performance so you can pick
out the top performers easily - even if you don't follow their advice.

Right now gold funds, energy funds, real estate funds and international
Pacific/Japan funds are performing well.

    Ray


author: Maurice E. Suhre

subject: Re: Comments on Mutual Fund Report?

text:
In article <[email]> [email] writes:
                                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^

Unfortunately, you didn't mention whose literature.  Hulbert's?  Berry's?

I have a file which shows a creation date of 10/13/89.  I'm attaching it
and it provides a fairly full explanation of Berry's newsletter.  I'm
not quite sure what the Hulbert Digest says (it's at home), but Hulbert
gets a little annoyed at newsletters that have several different model
portfolios.  If you have enough of them, one of them will be doing well
most any time.  Sort of like Fidelity and all of their sector funds --
a few are "hot" at any given time.  Anyway, the Class 3 has performed
best over the long haul.  It may very well be that the NoLoadFundX
strategy is not responsive enough to catch/avoid the swings in the
more aggressive funds.

I looked over the old stuff, and I don't use the newsletter in my IRA
any more.  I'll fish out my Hulbert Digest and post the recent results.

------Previously saved data follows-----
I became interested in the NoLoadFund*X newsletter as a result of
hearing Burt Berry speak at a "Mutual Fund day" sponsored by the LA
chapter of the AAII.  He displayed a list of the top 25 funds for a 5
year period (I believe it was 72-77).  Then he had two more columns
which showed their ranking for the 77-82 and 82-87 periods.  There
were hardly any funds that had made the top 25 consistently.  As I
remember, Fidelity Magellan was the *only* fund to make the list all
three time periods.  (I must confess that my memory is a little vague
here.  He may have shown an initial 25 funds followed by their rank
for the next 5 year period).  Some funds which had been in the top 25
were down to the 300s or 400s.  It was almost as if you had picked
random numbers for the subsequent 5 year periods.  Since I'm operating
from memory (and Fidelity Magellan was/is almost a household word), I
may have overlooked other funds with very good consistent performance.
(Mutual Shares has been called to my attention).  The point is that
*very few* of the original top funds made the top in the subsequent
time periods.  A similar argument has been offered with respect to the
Forbes ratings.  A lot of those that rate A one year, fail to rate A
the subsequent year.

His general thesis was that you shouldn't just buy and hold your funds
on the expectation of consistent performance.  Fund managers change,
going from "hot" to "cold" or vice versa, the market goes through
phases (blue chips are hot, or small stocks are hot, or whatever).
Also, the financial community is subject to fads and a herd instinct.
These observations suggest that funds will perform differently with
respect to each other and that these differences will vary with time.

He takes his universe of 542 (varies from time to time as funds are
added) funds, no load and low load, and categorizes them into classes
1 to 6.

	1 is "Most Speculative Growth"
	2 is "Speculative Growth"
	3 is "Higher Quality Growth"
	4 is "Total Return"
	5 is Income (broken into three sub-categories)
		Corporate Bonds funds
		U.S. Govt Bond Funds
		Tax Exempt Income - Municipal Bond Funds
	6 is Money Market (broken into two sub-categories)
		Taxable
		Tax Exempt

For each fund in classes 1-4 a score is computed by taking the sum of
the 12 month, 6 month, 3 month, and 1 month percentage returns and
dividing by 4.  In addition, a fund is awarded 1 bonus point if its
return in any of the four time periods is among the top 5, with the
comparison being made only within the same class.  Thus a fund may
"earn" a maximum of four bonus points.

His strategy is called "Follow The Stars (tm)".  This term comes from
the fact that the top 5 funds in each class are marked with "**" in
the listings.  The recommendation is that you invest in funds listed
in the star boxes on the front page.  The top 5 scoring funds in each
class make his "star" box which appears on the front page.  The idea
is to be invested in funds which are in the star box, and to switch
when they fall out of the top 5.  The newsletter does not do any
market timing and, on the front page in bold face type, it says
"During market declines, `top performing fund' may have lost least,
not gained most".  Class 5 and 6 funds are starred in the performance
listings for the various time periods, but there is no overall score
computed.

The Hulbert Digest has tracked his newsletter for the past 4 or 5
years.  The Class 3 funds (most conservative) have performed well,
classes 1 and 2 worse.

The funds which are available for purchase through Schwab are flagged.

The NoLoadFund*X is published by

	DAL Investment Co.
	235 Montgomery St.
	San Francisco, CA 94104
	415-986-7979

Annual subscription is $100 (at least as of 10/06/89 :-)

The October '89 issue invites subscribers to send in names of people
who might be interested.  I presume that if you write or call they
will be glad to send you a sample issue.

	------Danger: Opinions/observations follow!-----

I grateful to a reviewer who provided the following data from the
Hulbert digest preceded by a short commentary.

	For the last three years, NoLoadFund*X returned only
	51% as much as the S&P 500.  In other words, while the
	S&P 500 returned 62.1% during For the last three
	years, NoLoadFund*X returned only 51% as much as this
	period, the average of all portfolios in the
	newsletter returned only 31.67%.  Even portfolio 3
	underperformed, returning only 50.4%.  That doesn't
	seem like a very good record.  Here's Hulbert:

			% volatility	% return  (versus S&P 500)
	average		 85.14		51.00
	portfolio 1	138.62		15.47
	portfolio 2	 97.20		61.06
	portfolio 3	 72.50		81.16

   The Hulbert Digest is very careful to follow the exact
   suggestions given in the newsletter.  This means that Hulbert
   rebalances the holdings among the top five funds shown in the
   "star" box every month when the newsletter comes out.  This may
   not be the best strategy as evidenced by this quote from the
   October 89 NoLoadFund*X newsletter.

	"Upgrading with one fund in Class 3 for the past 13 years,
	for example, the average holding period would have been
	approximately eight months.  (That is, starting with the
	#1 Class 3 fund and holding it only so long as it remained
	in the top five, then exchanging to the current #1 fund in
	Class 3.)  This would have produced a compound annual rate
	of 28.4% for 13 years to 9/30/89."

Berry stated at his presentation that he thought you could do almost
as well if you stayed in while your fund was in the top 10 and
switched when it got lower.  Since Schwab charges about 1% to sell and
$10 to buy back the next day (i.e.  switch), excessive switching would
eat into your profits (or exacerbate your losses).

The use of the bonus point(s) seems to reward consistent performance,
and lift the top performers away from the rest slightly.  This may be
for the purpose of avoiding excessive "churning" among the top 5.
This is really conjecture on my part.

I had wondered about whether an alternate weighting among the four
time periods might be used to pick up earlier on which funds were
moving up.  After all, you might not have to use the same criterion
for buying as for selling.  Someone pointed out to me that the most
recent month's performance appears in the total 4 times, months 2-3
three times, months 4-6 twice, and months 7-12 once.  This seemed
about right to me, so I haven't pursued alternate weightings.

Another conversation suggested that Class 3 has done well in this
market, but what about the next bull? Should you be in Class 1 or 2
instead? At the end of the newsletter there is a ranking of all the
funds without regard to class.  The four time period sum is divided by
1.333 to get a Composite Performance Rating and is used to provide an
overall ranking.  This Rating number approximates an annualized
return.  The usual strategy for an investor is to pick a level of risk
that is appropriate to his/her situation, and then search for funds
within that class.  By using the Composite Ratings, you may be able to
see which class is performing best and get in gear with that class.
That is, we are using performance between classes to help pick the
class.  Obviously, you aren't locked in to any particular class.  In
fact, his whole idea is that locking in isn't a good idea.

Using the newsletter in conjunction with Schwab is really a
"no-brainer".  The newsletter shows up once a month, you check your
funds to see if they are still in the star boxes, and do nothing if
they are.  Otherwise you switch.

I personally believe in market timing even though I haven't been using
it yet.  I have been following the newsletter in my IRA for about 9
months.

-------------------Disclaimers------------------------

I am not a registered financial advisor or anything like that.  I
believe that the net is served when information is exchanged and I
have attempted to present the facts as I best understand them as well
to point out where the opinions are.  Remember this quote:

	"Investigate before you invest." -- Buz Schwartz


subject: Questions for Makers on Defects in Drugs

text:
For consumers who turned to drugstore house brands after the recall
last month of liquid childrenï¿½s Tylenol and other medicines made by a
unit of Johnson & Johnson, there is yet more unsettling news.

The recall included more than 40 varieties of liquid pediatric
Tylenol, Motrin, Benadryl and Zyrtec that may have contained metal
particles, too much of the active drug ingredient or inactive
ingredients that did not meet testing requirements. At the time, the
Food and Drug Administration recommended that consumers look for
generic alternatives to these brand-name over-the-counter drugs.

But now, Perrigo, a company based in Michigan that supplies drugstore
equivalents of those childrenï¿½s medicines to pharmacy chains like CVS
and Walgreens, has received a warning letter from the F.D.A. about
significant manufacturing violations of its own ï¿½ including ibuprofen
tablets contaminated with metal shavings.

Although the problems cited in the warning letter did not mention
childrenï¿½s products, the deficiencies at both Johnson & Johnson and
Perrigo raise questions about why some manufacturing plants have
shipped defective medicines.

ï¿½Why are these issues not being detected?ï¿½ said David J. Kroll, a
professor of pharmaceutical sciences at North Carolina Central
University in Durham. ï¿½What is the F.D.A. planning to do about
premarket quality control?ï¿½

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/business/27tylenol.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

	Lets not forget the Drug Industry get's there raw product to
make drugs from China.  The same country that gave us lead toys, and
poison pet food, besides other things that kill Americans.

	Krususf was right, we will buy the rope to hang our selves
with.


author: Ouroboros Rex

subject: Re: Questions for Makers on Defects in Drugs

text:
On 5/27/2010 2:08 AM, [email] wrote:

   Come on, the Tea Party tells us that agencies like the FDA are a
waste of their hard earned cash.  =)


author: [redacted]

text:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:27:42 -0500, Ouroboros Rex <[email]>
wrote:

	It is, when they don't do there job.


text:
On 5/27/2010 1:04 PM, [email] wrote:

   Yep - it's easy to make that true.  Just starve them of cash.


author: Anthony Stephen Szopa

subject: Prove It:  Final Post

text:
Here is the core basis of my unbreakable encryption / decryption
process.  The actual software is much more sophisticated.  If you cannot
decrypt messages encrypted with just the encryption core basis you have
no hope of decrypting a message encrypted using the fully developed
encryption software.

Encryption process:

Here is the example message:

	See my house.

Now here's the ascii code decimal equivalents:

S  ==  083
e  ==  101
e  ==  101
(space)  ==  032
m  ==  109
y  ==  121
(space)  ==  032
h  ==  104
o  ==  111
u  ==  117
s  ==  115
e  ==  101
.  ==  046

The following arrays will be used to encrypt the above message.

1)  0839726154		21) 1026983745
2)  7918052346		22) 8231079564
3)  4826590713 a	23) 4126957038
4)  1087295463 b	24) 3857962014
5)  1963485270		25) 0675382419
6)  1087295463 b	26) 7891450263 g
7)  1362074895		27) 6324780591
8)  4826590713 a	28) 7243968051
9)  7890625431		29) 7398415062
10) 3687254901		30) 7891450263 g
11) 5369712048 c	31) 0465918273
12) 0362798541 d	32) 4921350687
13) 9082437516 e	33) 1395804672
14) 9082437516 e	34) 5062748391
15) 3629574018		35) 5274301689
16) 0362798541 d	36) 3925681047
17) 0763895124		37) 0751628439
18) 7856012439 f	38) 7654093821
19) 5369712048 c	39) 5324780691
20) 7856012439 f

(Note:  some arrays are repeated (see letters for correspondence.)  No
digits repeated in each array.)

The encryption process:

Each ten-element digit array has its element positions numbered left to
right 0 - 9.  Use the three digit ascii code decimal equivalent of each
ascii character to index each array using one digit from the ascii code
for each array in turn.  Transform each digit from the ascii code into
the digit that occupies the particular element position in each array.

The encryption using each array in sequence beginning with 1):

S == 083:
0 -> 0		8 -> 4		3 -> 6
1)  0839726154	2)  7918052346	3)  4826590713

e == 101:
1 -> 0		0 -> 1		1 -> 0
4)  1087295463	5)  1963485270	6)  1087295463

e == 101:
1 -> 3		0 -> 4		1 -> 8
7)  1362074895	8)  4826590713	9)  7890625431

(space) == 032:
0 -> 3		3 -> 	9		2 -> 	6
10) 3687254901	11) 5369712048	12) 0362798541

m  ==  109:
1 -> 0		0 -> 9		9 -> 8
13) 9082437516	14) 9082437516	15) 3629574018

y  ==  121:
1 -> 3		2 -> 6		1 -> 8
16) 0362798541	17) 0763895124	18) 7856012439

(space)  ==  032:
0 -> 5		3 -> 6		2 -> 2
19) 5369712048	20) 7856012439	21) 1026983745

h  ==  104:
1 -> 2		0 -> 4		4 -> 9
22) 8231079564	23) 4126957038	24) 3857962014

o  ==  111:
1 -> 6		1 -> 8		1 -> 3
25) 0675382419	26) 7891450263	27) 6324780591

u  ==  117:
1 -> 2		1 -> 3		7 -> 2
28) 7243968051	29) 7398415062	30) 7891450263

s  ==  115:
1 -> 4		1 -> 9		5 -> 0
31) 0465918273	32) 4921350687	33) 1395804672

e  ==  101:
1 -> 0		0 -> 5		1 -> 9
34) 5062748391	35) 5274301689	36) 3925681047

.  ==  046:
0 -> 0		4 -> 0		6 -> 0
37) 0751628439	38) 7654093821	39) 5324780691

The encrypted message:

046010348396098368562249683232490059000
046010348396098368562249683232490059000 (confirmed)

Decrypting the encrypted message:

Simply reverse the above process.  I will only demonstrate the
decryption of the first character of the message.  You can work out the
rest of the details.

Take the first digit of the encrypted message: "0".  Find this digit in
the first array.  This digit corresponds to array element zero in the
first array.  Use this array position to translate back to the original
digit from the ascii character.

encrypted ascii character 046:
1)  0839726154	2)  7918052346	3)  4826590713
0 -> 0		4 -> 8		6 -> 3

Thus the first character of the encrypted message decrypts to 083 which
is ascii character "S".  Follow this same procedure for every three
encrypted digits to obtain the original text from the encrypted message.

Now here is your dilema:

I claim that by properly choosing the decrypt arrays I can decrypt the
above encryted message into any possible message given the encrypted
message and the 3,628,800 possible arrays.  In fact, I claim I can
decypt the above encrypted message to read:  "I have money." or any
other message that makes sense or not consisting of 13 ascii characters.

Here is proof:

Decrypt the above encrypted message using the following array set B:

1)  0839726154		21) 1026983745
2)  7918052436		22) 8231079564
3)  4826590713		23) 4126957038
4)  0187295463		24) 3857462019
5)  3961485270		25) 0675382419
6)  1807295463		26) 7891450263
7)  1362074895		27) 6324780591
8)  4826590713		28) 7243968051
9)  7690825431		29) 7398415062
10) 3687254901		30) 2891450763
11) 5368712049		31) 0465918273
12) 0352798641		32) 9421350687
13) 9082437516		33) 1095834672
14) 0982437516		34) 5062748391
15) 3629574081		35) 7254301689
16) 0362798541		36) 3925681047
17) 6703895124		37) 0751628439
18) 7856012439		38) 7654093821
19) 5369712048		39) 5324780691
20) 7856012439

046010348396098368562249683232490059000 (confirmed)

Prove it to yourself.  The encrypted message now decrypts to: "I have
money." when using array set B.  But we know that the original message
was:  "See my house." when the first array set was used.

I claim that for any 13 character message you give me I can find 39
arrays that will decrypt the above 39 digit encrypted message into the
message you give me.

So, now, how many of you think you can decrypt the following message
with 100% certainty?  Or if you do decrypt a message from the below
encrypted message tell us what you think the odds are that the message
you decrypt is the correct original message.

Let's play a game:  suppose the fate of the world is at stake and you
have only one guess to decrypt the following message in order to save
the entire world.  Please, for God sake, tell us all what the decrypted
message is!

Based upon the above process and argument I claim the following message
is unbreakable.  Do you agree?  If not, prove it by decrypting it.  You
get one chance to save the world.

The test encrypted message:

114474927109569069537333738393932058904

You must take a position on this post.  You cannot avoid it.  Whatever
your response or reaction is is your position.  To refuse to act is
still an action.  It is the act of not acting.  Please, now, tell us
all; show us all.

I will post one more time to say farewell.

Sinceely,

Anthony Szopa
Ciphile Software
http://www.ciphile.com
[email]


subject: Re: Prove It:  Final Post

text:
Anthony Stephen Szopa <[email]> wrote:

(some snipping has been done to save time and space)

Ok I am with ya so far.

OO looks good

(lots of number and mathmatical type stuff, that made my head hurt
sniped)

(more numbers etc sniped)

I will take your word for it.

I would guess not one person in his right mind would say they could.
And I will tell you why.
(important part comming up)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ok, I will be stright up with everyone I dont know thing one about
crypto (hope you wont hold that aginst me) but I am finding it to be
quite interesting. The reason I have to agree with his claim is this.

What he has shown us is that he can make the out come what ever he
wants it to be, and since noone here aside from him is in possision of
the "key?" or the original message, then by his own admision he can
can make the text come out how ever he wants, ie. see my house = I
have money. Now while I wont begin to pretend I understand all the
mathmatics of crypto, I can understand a sure bet when I see it, so my
question to Mr. Szopa, or anyone else is how would anyone know "100%"
if they have arived at the right answer when the only person who will
know for sure is the one claiming that his code cant be broken.

If this is all it takes then I can make up a msg right now and here is
how it works each letter in the following is a letter right next to
the letter (on the key board) actualy used in the msg.
I bet none of you can break it even knowing how it is done

gdwl4 6bjw

There it is totaly unbreakable why cause no mater what answer you come
up with I will tell you it is something else!!

Just my two cents.


author: M. Scott Everard

subject: Re: Prove It:  Final Post

text:
In article <[email]>, Anthony Stephen Szopa <[email]> says:

<<snip>>

I am still waiting for the program executable and source so I can rip your
encryption scheme to shreds.

Regards,
M. Scott Everard