On 14 Feb 2024 22:30:57 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Personally, I would rather see Canadians building nuclear power plants in
>the US.... they have done a better job on the whole of it than we have.

Back in the 80s and 90s my sister-in-law's brother was a Canadian
(born in UK, emigrated with family in early teens) engineer building
CANDUs in Korea. Long retired now of course.

On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 12:53:37 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:59:29 -0000 (UTC), Quadibloc
> <quad...@servername.invalid> wrote:

> >From that point of view, it's easy to see why some would prefer
> >letting Russia or China conquer the world. There, it would only
> >be a thousand years or so to recover.

> Somehow I don't see Xi Jinping in the role of Hari Seldon founding two
> foundations.....

Hey, I never said that he was part of the solution. He's part of the
precipitate!

John Savard

On 17/02/2024 21:09, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On 17/02/2024 20:18, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:40:21 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As worded, I'd expect that /exclusive/
>>> access to an /outhouse/ with plumbing
>>> counts.  Though now I'm anxious about
>>> washing of hands.
>>
>> What do you mean "exclusive"?
>>
>> I assume you mean "exclusive to inhabitants of the home" (in other
>> words in my case to the two people who live there")
>>
>> As opposed to public buildings many of which have offices which are
>> largely restricted to those who work there vs the general public.
>
> It is about households which do/don't
> "have" a (water) flush toilet.
>
> <https://allgeographynow.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/tenement-life-in-glasgow/>
> says that cheap housing in Glasgow, Scotland,
> got indoor restrooms by law, but shared,
> due to legislation in 1892.  Before that,
> the provision might be outdoor and shared.
> Of course, better housing...  was better.
>
> Some villages in Africa and rural England
> are only now getting sanitation...  for one
> person at a time to use.  I think that
> households there do not "have" a flush toilet
> if it's

"not"

exclusively theirs.
>
> But what if it's indoors - but not in your
> individual apartment?  As in Glasgow
> after 1892.
>
> My point is to understand what a statistic
> actus'lh is about.

On 17 Feb 2024 18:09:01 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>In article <uqpcd8$8tnu$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>Your original claim was that every toilet in the village was stolen and
>>trucked away. Do you really believe that?
>
>Not too hard to believe, especially if the village has been pretty heavily
>bombed to the point where there were only a few intact toilets left.
>
>Certainly I have seen that kind of thing happening in wars before, and the
>Russians are known experts. After WWII, they jacked up the Zeiss plant and
>took it back to Moscow intact. They jacked up two Agfa plants and took
>them back to the Soviet Union which is how they got Sovcolor film. Printing
>plants, bearing plants, airplane plants all got packed up and shipped.

But they waited until they had won the war. They not only haven't won
in the Ukraine, they appear to be moving backwards, however slowly.

Or were before the Republicans, Putin's friends, took over.

And, "to the victor belong the spoils" is a very old adage.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:13:55 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 15/02/2024 17:08, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> The "pull-tab" meant here is the "built-in device used to open a
>>> beverage can" Bing brings up. The can can be said to have been
>>> "popped" when opened. The "beverage" could, of course, be beer.
>>
>> I actually found a spent beer tab at the local county park
>> yesterday. First one I've seen in decades.
>
>A modern aluminium can is designed to
>keep the pop-out part which opens, attached
>to the can - unless you work quite hard to
>detach it, I suppose.
>
>Quite large animals including livestock
>have been lethally injured by swallowing
>the old style, throwaway built-in opener,
>so it's better not to have that kind.
>And it makes recycling easier.

I'm glad to hear it!

Recycling is weird. Not only do the rules differ from place to place,
but then you have "recyclable" toothpaste tubes and other oddities.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 01:01:07 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>The Canadian CANDU power plants are heavy water with their own sets of
>limitations and issues. All of the nuclear power plants built in the
>last 40 years in the USA run at over 90% capacity factor but with
>horrible cost overruns due to the complexity of building the dadgum
>domes (generally 350 ??? feet tall with 3/4 inch rebar on 6 inch centers
>with 3.5 feet wall thickness for a 150 ??? foot diameter). I don't
>think that the Canadian Nuclear Power Plants have domes like we build
>them in the USA. The USA domes are calculated to take a 707 impact at
>600+ ??? knots.
>
>I was present at the start of the first dome test for Comanche Peak 1 in
>Texas. Huge sections of the concrete dome were falling off and exposing
>voids in the concrete that you could put a person into when we
>pressurized the dome to 65 ??? psig. Been too many years since 1983, I
>cannot remember the details anymore.

Yep - you could probably figure out CANDU by thinking Canadad -
Deuterium - Uranium (needless to say nobody's using "Depleted Uranium"
for generating powerr!)

If the American domes are calculated to take a jumbo impact that's
either engineering or somebody's been watching too many 9/11
slo-motion replies of the Twin Towers.

On 17 Feb 2024 18:09:01 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>In article <uqpcd8$8tnu$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>Your original claim was that every toilet in the village was stolen and
>>trucked away. Do you really believe that?
>
>Not too hard to believe, especially if the village has been pretty heavily
>bombed to the point where there were only a few intact toilets left.
>
>Certainly I have seen that kind of thing happening in wars before, and the
>Russians are known experts. After WWII, they jacked up the Zeiss plant and
>took it back to Moscow intact. They jacked up two Agfa plants and took
>them back to the Soviet Union which is how they got Sovcolor film. Printing
>plants, bearing plants, airplane plants all got packed up and shipped.
>--scott

It's a fine old Soviet tradition - back during WW2 Soviet agents were
stealing AMERICAN blueprints from factories and bundling them off to
air bases for transhipment to Russia. On at least one case they were
caught red-handed (no pun intended) loading them by the filing cabinet
full onto Soviet planes in Alaska - and were held on the ground for
2-3 hours by American military policemen who when they called their
superior officers to let them know were delayed while the brass got
direct orders from the White House to let them go. These plans were
said to be invaluable to postwar Soviet reconstruction in the 1945-50
period.

It's one of the reasons I personally >don't< consider FDR one of
America's best presidents since he either knowingly aided and abetted
America's enemies (which the Soviets were considered by 1944 even
though Hitler was considered a greater US enemy) or knowingly
harborded people that were as senior members as part of his inner
circle or cabinet.

In fact it's a key reason why I regard Truman as greater than FDR
since I think that while FDR was invalualble 1933-40, lots of people
given the industrial power America had could have won the war though
given the state of the Soviet Union in 1944-45 SHOULD have been even
more dominant post-war than they were. Particularly in nuclear
research and aviation/rocketry, the Soviet Union made far greater
advances postwar than they could have on their own.

On 2/19/2024 1:40 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 01:01:07 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Canadian CANDU power plants are heavy water with their own sets of
>> limitations and issues. All of the nuclear power plants built in the
>> last 40 years in the USA run at over 90% capacity factor but with
>> horrible cost overruns due to the complexity of building the dadgum
>> domes (generally 350 ??? feet tall with 3/4 inch rebar on 6 inch centers
>> with 3.5 feet wall thickness for a 150 ??? foot diameter). I don't
>> think that the Canadian Nuclear Power Plants have domes like we build
>> them in the USA. The USA domes are calculated to take a 707 impact at
>> 600+ ??? knots.
>>
>> I was present at the start of the first dome test for Comanche Peak 1 in
>> Texas. Huge sections of the concrete dome were falling off and exposing
>> voids in the concrete that you could put a person into when we
>> pressurized the dome to 65 ??? psig. Been too many years since 1983, I
>> cannot remember the details anymore.
>
> Yep - you could probably figure out CANDU by thinking Canadad -
> Deuterium - Uranium (needless to say nobody's using "Depleted Uranium"
> for generating powerr!)
>
> If the American domes are calculated to take a jumbo impact that's
> either engineering or somebody's been watching too many 9/11
> slo-motion replies of the Twin Towers.

The plane skyjacking events of the 1960s were fodder for many over
protections for society. Every large nuclear reactor built since 1965
??? has a incredibly solid concrete dome with 3/4 inch rebar on six inch
centers over it.

Lynn

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:20:56 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dorothy thought that we were headed to a generic they / them for all
> pronouns but, I kinda doubt it.

I wish I doubted it. Singular "they" is at least as destructive as
singular "you".

And why did we throw away "one"? Saying "you" when he meant "one"
cost a carpet salesman a very big sale.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On 20/02/2024 03:21, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:20:56 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dorothy thought that we were headed to a generic they / them for all
>> pronouns but, I kinda doubt it.
>
> I wish I doubted it. Singular "they" is at least as destructive as
> singular "you".
>
> And why did we throw away "one"?

One hasn't.

This one uses it as pleases themself.

On 18/02/2024 16:18, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:13:55 +0000, Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15/02/2024 17:08, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The "pull-tab" meant here is the "built-in device used to open a
>>>> beverage can" Bing brings up. The can can be said to have been
>>>> "popped" when opened. The "beverage" could, of course, be beer.
>>>
>>> I actually found a spent beer tab at the local county park
>>> yesterday. First one I've seen in decades.
>>
>> A modern aluminium can is designed to
>> keep the pop-out part which opens, attached
>> to the can - unless you work quite hard to
>> detach it, I suppose.
>>
>> Quite large animals including livestock
>> have been lethally injured by swallowing
>> the old style, throwaway built-in opener,
>> so it's better not to have that kind.
>> And it makes recycling easier.
>
> I'm glad to hear it!
>
> Recycling is weird. Not only do the rules differ from place to place,
> but then you have "recyclable" toothpaste tubes and other oddities.

I just remembered to check what goes in which
bin when I visit family here.

<https://www.falkirk.gov.uk/services/bins-rubbish-recycling/household-waste/what-goes-in-my-bins/recycling-tool.aspx>

What catches my eye is that they want food cans
to be recycled with their lids on.

And the wrapper. But I've been amusing myself
by using spare boiling water inside a can
to un-glue the label on the outside, to recycle
with paper. I don't really need to do that,
and there may be an appalling accident in my
future. Also I put the lid in the can, and
up to four more - or one if they are ring-pull
removable lids - keeping apart steel and
aluminium, then I crush the top end flat, and
fold it over, to keep the lids safely inside
the can, and anything else in the bin, outside it.
The crushing and folding doesn't work with
too many lids in one can.

This may baffle an AI trash sorting mechanism
unless it has learned my ways by now, but I
think that they use electromagnets instead anyway.

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 11:50:47 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On 17 Feb 2024 18:09:01 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>In article <uqpcd8$8tnu$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>Your original claim was that every toilet in the village was stolen and
>>>trucked away. Do you really believe that?
>>
>>Not too hard to believe, especially if the village has been pretty heavily
>>bombed to the point where there were only a few intact toilets left.
>>
>>Certainly I have seen that kind of thing happening in wars before, and the
>>Russians are known experts. After WWII, they jacked up the Zeiss plant and
>>took it back to Moscow intact. They jacked up two Agfa plants and took
>>them back to the Soviet Union which is how they got Sovcolor film. Printing
>>plants, bearing plants, airplane plants all got packed up and shipped.
>>--scott
>
>It's a fine old Soviet tradition - back during WW2 Soviet agents were
>stealing AMERICAN blueprints from factories and bundling them off to
>air bases for transhipment to Russia. On at least one case they were
>caught red-handed (no pun intended) loading them by the filing cabinet
>full onto Soviet planes in Alaska - and were held on the ground for
>2-3 hours by American military policemen who when they called their
>superior officers to let them know were delayed while the brass got
>direct orders from the White House to let them go. These plans were
>said to be invaluable to postwar Soviet reconstruction in the 1945-50
>period.
>
>It's one of the reasons I personally >don't< consider FDR one of
>America's best presidents since he either knowingly aided and abetted
>America's enemies (which the Soviets were considered by 1944 even
>though Hitler was considered a greater US enemy) or knowingly
>harborded people that were as senior members as part of his inner
>circle or cabinet.
>
>In fact it's a key reason why I regard Truman as greater than FDR
>since I think that while FDR was invalualble 1933-40, lots of people
>given the industrial power America had could have won the war though
>given the state of the Soviet Union in 1944-45 SHOULD have been even
>more dominant post-war than they were. Particularly in nuclear
>research and aviation/rocketry, the Soviet Union made far greater
>advances postwar than they could have on their own.

Yes, some post-War Germans (both WWI and WWII) were absolutely
convinced that they only lost because of "traitors".

Nice story, though.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:36:13 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 18/02/2024 16:18, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:13:55 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/02/2024 17:08, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The "pull-tab" meant here is the "built-in device used to open a
>>>>> beverage can" Bing brings up. The can can be said to have been
>>>>> "popped" when opened. The "beverage" could, of course, be beer.
>>>>
>>>> I actually found a spent beer tab at the local county park
>>>> yesterday. First one I've seen in decades.
>>>
>>> A modern aluminium can is designed to
>>> keep the pop-out part which opens, attached
>>> to the can - unless you work quite hard to
>>> detach it, I suppose.
>>>
>>> Quite large animals including livestock
>>> have been lethally injured by swallowing
>>> the old style, throwaway built-in opener,
>>> so it's better not to have that kind.
>>> And it makes recycling easier.
>>
>> I'm glad to hear it!
>>
>> Recycling is weird. Not only do the rules differ from place to place,
>> but then you have "recyclable" toothpaste tubes and other oddities.
>
>I just remembered to check what goes in which
>bin when I visit family here.
>
><https://www.falkirk.gov.uk/services/bins-rubbish-recycling/household-waste/what-goes-in-my-bins/recycling-tool.aspx>

We have simplified it: one bin for recycling. It's quite large.

>What catches my eye is that they want food cans
>to be recycled with their lids on.
>
>And the wrapper. But I've been amusing myself
>by using spare boiling water inside a can
>to un-glue the label on the outside, to recycle
>with paper. I don't really need to do that,
>and there may be an appalling accident in my
>future. Also I put the lid in the can, and
>up to four more - or one if they are ring-pull
>removable lids - keeping apart steel and
>aluminium, then I crush the top end flat, and
>fold it over, to keep the lids safely inside
>the can, and anything else in the bin, outside it.
>The crushing and folding doesn't work with
>too many lids in one can.

I do much the same, but just with the can's own lid. Which probably
ensures that both are of the same metal. And I remove the lable. I
haven't bothered to check further.

>This may baffle an AI trash sorting mechanism
>unless it has learned my ways by now, but I
>think that they use electromagnets instead anyway.

This is all very weird. Metal can lids are not allowed separately
(under 3") because they cause problems with the equipment (I think
they slip through the part that grinds everything into pieces). Yet
they are magnetic, and so (one would think) should be separated out by
then.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 11:40:11 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 01:01:07 -0600, Lynn McGuire
><lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The Canadian CANDU power plants are heavy water with their own sets of
>>limitations and issues. All of the nuclear power plants built in the
>>last 40 years in the USA run at over 90% capacity factor but with
>>horrible cost overruns due to the complexity of building the dadgum
>>domes (generally 350 ??? feet tall with 3/4 inch rebar on 6 inch centers
>>with 3.5 feet wall thickness for a 150 ??? foot diameter). I don't
>>think that the Canadian Nuclear Power Plants have domes like we build
>>them in the USA. The USA domes are calculated to take a 707 impact at
>>600+ ??? knots.
>>
>>I was present at the start of the first dome test for Comanche Peak 1 in
>>Texas. Huge sections of the concrete dome were falling off and exposing
>>voids in the concrete that you could put a person into when we
>>pressurized the dome to 65 ??? psig. Been too many years since 1983, I
>>cannot remember the details anymore.
>
>Yep - you could probably figure out CANDU by thinking Canadad -
>Deuterium - Uranium (needless to say nobody's using "Depleted Uranium"
>for generating powerr!)
>
>If the American domes are calculated to take a jumbo impact that's
>either engineering or somebody's been watching too many 9/11
>slo-motion replies of the Twin Towers.

A 707 is not a jumbo. Well, provided its a Boeing 707; someone else's
707 might be, I suppose.

That 747s were not used probably says something about when the
standards used were developed.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

In article <affc4fae-67e2-4b16-ae0f-7fd8b92b303dn@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>Of course, A. E. van Vogt _was_ a crank to a certain extent, but getting
>orbital mechanics this badly wrong... was, presumably, simply required
>so as to allow the plot of the story to exist.
>
>But even in 1944, surely this was risible, given the orbits of known
>comets and asteroids.

Van Vogt's orbital mechanics in that story is not just ordinary
wrong, it's brain-hurting wrong.

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some villages in Africa and rural England
> are only now getting sanitation... for one
> person at a time to use.

obSF _Lord of Light_ "It shall be installed in the small room I have
built onto the back of my home. I may even give a dinner that night and
permit all my neighbours to take use of it."

On 2/20/2024 9:41 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
[snip-snip]

[Re: "A Can of Paint" (1944)]
> Van Vogt's orbital mechanics in that story is not just ordinary
> wrong, it's brain-hurting wrong.

To quote John Clute's SFE article:

"Thus freed of any surface verisimilitude, Van Vogt's space operas, as
noted, are at heart enacted dreams which articulate deep, symbolic needs
and wishes of his readership. Because there is no misunderstood science
or cosmography or technology at the very heart of his best work, there
is no "improving" van Vogt."

In article <ur40r2$2v58u$1@dont-email.me>,
Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> wrote:
>On 2/20/2024 9:41 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>[snip-snip]
>
>[Re: "A Can of Paint" (1944)]
>> Van Vogt's orbital mechanics in that story is not just ordinary
>> wrong, it's brain-hurting wrong.
>
>To quote John Clute's SFE article:
>
>"Thus freed of any surface verisimilitude, Van Vogt's space operas, as
>noted, are at heart enacted dreams which articulate deep, symbolic needs
>and wishes of his readership. Because there is no misunderstood science
>or cosmography or technology at the very heart of his best work, there
>is no "improving" van Vogt."
>

Yes, this.

I think Malzberg said something similar.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:06:32 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>>In fact it's a key reason why I regard Truman as greater than FDR
>>since I think that while FDR was invalualble 1933-40, lots of people
>>given the industrial power America had could have won the war though
>>given the state of the Soviet Union in 1944-45 SHOULD have been even
>>more dominant post-war than they were. Particularly in nuclear
>>research and aviation/rocketry, the Soviet Union made far greater
>>advances postwar than they could have on their own.
>
>Yes, some post-War Germans (both WWI and WWII) were absolutely
>convinced that they only lost because of "traitors".
>
>Nice story, though.

(aside: the >>'s were written by me the >'s by Paul)

No question the Soviets captured a lot of German technology in 1944-45
(and in my original posting I was deliberately vague enough to leave
room for that) but the story about American trade secrets spotted by
USAAF handlers of planes in Alaska bound for Siberia came from
Unlikely Heroes (subtitle: Franklin Roosevelt: His Four Lieutenants
and the World they Made)
https://www.amazon.ca/Unlikely-Heroes-Franklin-Roosevelt-Lieutenants/dp/1250274699
and it's clear that at least from 1941-45 quite a lot of FDR's cabinet
including FDR himself (though not Truman) were far cozier with the
Soviets that Allies should be.

Churchill was at least realistic about Stalin but by 1944-45 no longer
had the power to seriously influence FDR.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:11:37 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>This is all very weird. Metal can lids are not allowed separately
>(under 3") because they cause problems with the equipment (I think
>they slip through the part that grinds everything into pieces). Yet
>they are magnetic, and so (one would think) should be separated out by
>then.

Really?!? It's been years since I've encountered one of those that
wasn't aluminum.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:13:36 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>>Yep - you could probably figure out CANDU by thinking Canadad -
>>Deuterium - Uranium (needless to say nobody's using "Depleted Uranium"
>>for generating powerr!)
>>
>>If the American domes are calculated to take a jumbo impact that's
>>either engineering or somebody's been watching too many 9/11
>>slo-motion replies of the Twin Towers.
>
>A 707 is not a jumbo. Well, provided its a Boeing 707; someone else's
>707 might be, I suppose.
>
>That 747s were not used probably says something about when the
>standards used were developed.

I dunno - the 747 was first used commercially in the early 1970s which
is a full generation before 9/11. Google says Pan Am was the first to
use it commercially (which makes sense given they were one of the top
airlines at that time) but I don't think United Airlines and American
Airlines deserve scorn for having been the airlines whose 4 planes
played a starring role on 11 Sept 2001. (None of which were 747s - 2
were 767s - the two Twin Towers aircraft, 2 were 757s - the one that
crashed the Pentagon and the one brought down over PA and believed to
be headed for DC)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:11:37 -0800, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>This is all very weird. Metal can lids are not allowed separately
>>(under 3") because they cause problems with the equipment (I think
>>they slip through the part that grinds everything into pieces). Yet
>>they are magnetic, and so (one would think) should be separated out by
>>then.
>
>Really?!? It's been years since I've encountered one of those that
>wasn't aluminum.

Most non-beverage cans (peas, corn, soup, etc) are made from
tin (or steel) so far as I am aware.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:58:44 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:11:37 -0800, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>This is all very weird. Metal can lids are not allowed separately
>>>(under 3") because they cause problems with the equipment (I think
>>>they slip through the part that grinds everything into pieces). Yet
>>>they are magnetic, and so (one would think) should be separated out by
>>>then.
>>
>>Really?!? It's been years since I've encountered one of those that
>>wasn't aluminum.
>
>Most non-beverage cans (peas, corn, soup, etc) are made from
>tin (or steel) so far as I am aware.

Which would explain why refrigerator magnets cling to them so well.

I haven't used a beverage can in ... so many decades I've forgotten
when. I'm sure I did, though, at some point.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 2/22/2024 1:33 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:11:37 -0800, Paul S Person
> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> This is all very weird. Metal can lids are not allowed separately
>> (under 3") because they cause problems with the equipment (I think
>> they slip through the part that grinds everything into pieces). Yet
>> they are magnetic, and so (one would think) should be separated out by
>> then.
>
> Really?!? It's been years since I've encountered one of those that
> wasn't aluminum.

Aluminum is used for drink cans, where the carbonation pressure
can be used to prevent them from buckling. There is a laqcuer
coating on the inside.

Food and non-carbonated drinks use steel cans with a lacquer coating.
Once upon a time tin plating was used (ie, galvanized steel), but
that's more expensive than the lacquer. So 'tin can' is an anachronism.

pt

On 22/02/2024 16:42, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:58:44 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:11:37 -0800, Paul S Person
>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is all very weird. Metal can lids are not allowed separately
>>>> (under 3") because they cause problems with the equipment (I think
>>>> they slip through the part that grinds everything into pieces). Yet
>>>> they are magnetic, and so (one would think) should be separated out by
>>>> then.
>>>
>>> Really?!? It's been years since I've encountered one of those that
>>> wasn't aluminum.
>>
>> Most non-beverage cans (peas, corn, soup, etc) are made from
>> tin (or steel) so far as I am aware.
>
> Which would explain why refrigerator magnets cling to them so well.
>
> I haven't used a beverage can in ... so many decades I've forgotten
> when. I'm sure I did, though, at some point.

Granovita Mushroom Pate" comes in a small
tin which magnets don't stick to. I assume
it is aluminium.

I expect that large cans may be steel
regardless of contents, because aluminium
wouldn't scale up affordably in some
uses. Aluminium still is expensive
enough that the can made of it uses as
little of it as possible.