Author Topic: Errors or discrepancies in the books  (Read 71622 times)

cherdabear

  • Guest
Re: Adam's Color
« Reply #30 on: March 04, 2008, 01:07:53 am »
I like your scoring there Mike. 

We get people that call the office and tell us that they found mistakes in the paper.  It can really drive you nuts.  We laugh that we put the mistakes in so that they can have something to do with their time.

 I notice mistakes as I read but to tell you the truth I have never found a book that has no mistakes in it. So I don't think you have anything to worry about.  It is the story that makes a book worth reading and Patty has the important part down pat.  :D

charmed

  • Tool Wrangler
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • Book Addict & Proud
    • Bea's Book Nook
Re: Errors or discrepancies in the books
« Reply #31 on: March 04, 2008, 07:44:39 pm »
Is it Samuel Cornick? I read where Uncle Mike called him Samuel Marrokson or was that only because he was angry and trying to make a point to Sam?
I wondered about that too, plus Marrokson would fit with the old European tradition of surnames eg Robertson was literally Robert's son.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 01:24:54 pm by Sergeant of Squirrels »
Proud member of The Smuthound Gang & COMFIE. Esteemed member of the SOOGA. Always perfect. Sometimes breathing.

Ellyll

  • Pack Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1017
Re: Errors or discrepancies in the books
« Reply #32 on: March 04, 2008, 07:54:45 pm »
Could be both, depending on how old they are.  Sam ap Bran, or Sam ap Marrok, becomes Sam Marrokson, becomes Sam Cornick over time as naming conventions change?
Dear Lord, be good to me.  The sea is so wide, and my boat is so small.

You let a wolf save your life, and you pay and you pay, and you pay...

gryphon340

  • Mechanic
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
Re: Errors or discrepancies in the books
« Reply #33 on: March 04, 2008, 08:00:26 pm »
There is a specific Welsh naming convention, but I am not sure of it.
life is terminal

"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the sermon of the mount" Omar N. Bradley, U.S Army General

Cole

  • Grease Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 38
  • Der Teufel ist ein Eichhörnchen
Re: Errors or discrepancies in the books
« Reply #34 on: March 04, 2008, 08:28:44 pm »
over time my last name changed from "swine farmer" to "Sweeney"

There is no place like /~

charmed

  • Tool Wrangler
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • Book Addict & Proud
    • Bea's Book Nook
Re: Errors or discrepancies in the books
« Reply #35 on: March 04, 2008, 08:37:25 pm »
 :o You are really a swine, not a squirrel?


WILBUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUR!!




 ;D ;D



apologies Grey for going ot but I couldn't resist. **puts on halo of innocence**
Proud member of The Smuthound Gang & COMFIE. Esteemed member of the SOOGA. Always perfect. Sometimes breathing.

Cole

  • Grease Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 38
  • Der Teufel ist ein Eichhörnchen
Re: Errors or discrepancies in the books
« Reply #36 on: March 05, 2008, 07:52:41 pm »
Glass is still a liquid though with and extremely high viscosity rating and because of gravity the glass particles will sink but that takes extreme amounts of time centuries most likely and the websites explained cathedral stained windows. Also glass has additives to make it stronger and more stable now but if the cabin was built by hand how do we know additives were used.

There is no place like /~

Mominator

  • Radix lecti
  • Global Moderator
  • Grease Monkey
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Errors or discrepancies in the books
« Reply #37 on: March 08, 2008, 10:58:33 am »
Just to add fuel to the fire, I have a friend who is glass blower/stained glass artist, and I asked her if glass-as-liquid was a myth or not, and she says it is not.  Hm.  I shall just have to stay alive for a thousand years or so, watching a pane of glass!

charmed

  • Tool Wrangler
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • Book Addict & Proud
    • Bea's Book Nook
Re: Errors or discrepancies in the books
« Reply #38 on: March 08, 2008, 01:44:51 pm »
Good luck with that Momi  ;D
Proud member of The Smuthound Gang & COMFIE. Esteemed member of the SOOGA. Always perfect. Sometimes breathing.

v3rlon

  • Grease Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 37
Re: Errors or discrepancies in the books
« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2008, 10:43:51 pm »
glass is an amorphous material, with no real 'solid' and 'liquid' points like water.

That said, my father was a glazer, and he has pulled windows that were 200 years old, and NOT thicker on the bottom.  The whole thing is a myth.  Its not additives.  Its not centuries.  At any temperature where the building isn't burning down, the glass isn't flowing.  It melts at 1400 celsius or around 3000 F at the low end (higher for additives). Your diamonds are burning like the coal they are by then.

grommet

  • Tool Wrangler
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Errors or discrepancies in the books
« Reply #40 on: April 21, 2008, 03:48:00 pm »
When I was a boy the school visited Philadelphia and the guide at independence hall pointed to the old windows and made the same claim.  Maybe I could go down to philly break a few of the windows whip out the trusty micrometer and do some measuring.  Hey its for science!

v3rlon

  • Grease Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 37
Re: Errors or discrepancies in the books
« Reply #41 on: April 21, 2008, 07:20:05 pm »
try googling first...  It's better for your arrest record.  :)

Snopes might even have one for it.  (www.snopes.com urban legends site)

MadMcAl

  • Grease Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 41
Re: Errors or discrepancies in the books
« Reply #42 on: April 21, 2008, 08:20:09 pm »
Actually that depends on the type of glass and the temperature.

Depending of the ingredients the finished glass has a so called transition temperature. When this temperature is reached or broken the glass will liquify much much faster.
Under this temperature it will still liquify, but it will need a very long time (lets just say that the sun would propably explode before that).
Everything we call glass today has an rather high transition temperature of 300°C+.
Including the socalled cathedral glass.

So it is as well an urban myth as utter truth.
Si vis pacem, para bellum!

berneynator

  • Grease Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 28
Re: Errors or discrepancies in the books
« Reply #43 on: April 23, 2008, 07:38:15 pm »
okay, but we're talking about old glass, not modern glass. Does two- or three hundred-year-old glass have such a high transition point?

MadMcAl

  • Grease Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 41
Re: Errors or discrepancies in the books
« Reply #44 on: April 23, 2008, 08:41:53 pm »
Yup!
Glass-manufacture is more than 5000 years old.
What we call "modern" glass goes actually back to the 9nth century.
Since the 11nth century humans create glass-sheets (like, for example in windows).

And, just for your information, if the transition-temperature is reached or surpassed, the liquifidation will commerce in weeks, not years.
So, per logical deduction, if anytime there was glass in use with an transition temperature in the vincinity of standard temperatures, they where in the very first experimentations. This batches will have flown away in the regals of the manufactor, so this receptures will propably changed as fast as possible.
So we can assume that for more than 4000 years nobody made glass that simply liquified.
We can also assume that glass that simply liquified under normal circumstances did so more than 4000 years ago.
Of course, if an really old were comes up it would be possible that he remembers glass actually flowing away. But not very propable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum!