From: "Michael Painter"
References: <3DC730B0.5FDAB60E@rica.net> <3DC738EC.44458C98@webaccess.net> <3DC7C3FF.7ABC2433@webaccess.net> <3DCB3310.C806A8AE@rica.net> <%0wz9.21822$Ku.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: O.T. Math help
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 19:39:58 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 19:39:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"James Meyer" wrote in message
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 17:16:21 GMT, Jim Thompson
> >"Mike" ,
> >Wrote the following:
> >|He also states that the estimated time for a 1m tall, 1cm thick sheet of
> >|glass to flow enough to thicken the bottom of the pane by 10A is roughly
> >|billion years.
> >|-- Mike --
> >I certainly can't debate the technology issues, but I've seen the
> >windows; and any tour of old sites, such as Williamsburg or Jamestown,
> >will have a tour guide or a placard noting the flow of glass.
> > ...Jim Thompson
> Where else would you expect to see an "old wives tale" than an old site
> like Williamsburg or Jamestown?
> Besides, if I were an ancient glazier I think I would set a pane of
> glass that already happened to have a thick edge with the thick edge at
> bottom of the opening. It would only make sense to put the strongest part
> the bottom.
Possibly. It just occurred to me that nobody every talks about the material
at the top of the glass being thinner or the ripples in the glass changing.
You may be right about putting the thick side down, but I wonder if some or
all the edges might be thick?