I must be a moron for writing this... over to the chemtrail debunkers...

a reply to: Psynic

Right, so the whole phone number thing was just a ruse to make folks look silly?
it would be cool if you were as smart as you think, but sadly, you aren't.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Rodinus

I am glad nobody ate any. I doubt it would be good for you.

Most hail-suppression attempts have been based on the concept that damage will be reduced if the hailstone sizes are reduced. This does not require overseeding. Consider, for example, an unseeded cloud that produces one hailstone having a two-centimetre diameter in each cubic metre of air. If ice-nuclei seeding could cause 100 uniform hailstones in the same volume from the same available quantity of supercooled water, their diameters would be about 0.4 centimetre. The small stones would melt as they fell through the layer of warm air below the freezing level. Even if they did not melt completely to form rain, by the time the hailstones reached the ground they would be too small to do any serious damage.

www.britannica.com...

I don't know the in's and out's of this stuff, but I do know that cloud seeding (for rain) is kind of fringe, in that we aren't sure of it works, or if the clouds that were seeded would have rained anyway. But if you go to a farmer who just had his crops decimated, and you tried to sell him something that claims to eliminate that danger, I would suppose it would be an easy sale. BTW, I have a case of ATS troll spray left over after the 4th. is anyone interested?

Did you taste it?

You could be up for a Darwin.

a reply to: Psynic

No, but I sure am glad I still have a few cans left. It appears they will come in handy sooner rather than later.

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
This was nice. So few threads come to such a satisfactory conclusion.

Really?

I thought it was pathetic.

Really? 46 minutes to identify the object, and 70 minutes to identify the powder?

I wouldn't call that pathetic.

PS: I would happily do a "lab taste" of a very small amount, having done the vinegar test I would be 95% certain it would be bicarb. Even if it was MAP (the other common dry powder extinguisher) a little taste wouldn't be harmful.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
This was nice. So few threads come to such a satisfactory conclusion.

Really?

I thought it was pathetic.

Really? 46 minutes to identify the object, and 70 minutes to identify the powder?

I wouldn't call that pathetic.

PS: I would happily do a "lab taste" of a very small amount, having done the vinegar test I would be 95% certain it would be bicarb. Even if it was MAP (the other common dry powder extinguisher) a little taste wouldn't be harmful.

2 hours compared to .2 seconds.

Yes, pathetic is correct.

a reply to: Psynic
You would have found that data in 0.2 seconds? Where?

a reply to: Rob48

Someplace you don't seem to have access to.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

No prob, you were correct. I do the presumptive too.

Its a quick step.

Psy i quote you here :

"This is NOT an item from the 1950's or 1960's.

I can't believe anyone could think otherwise.

Pull tabs, moulding lines, precision details and even the labelling and typeface did NOT exist at that time.

I sincerely fear for ATS that no one has pointed this out."



It seems that you did not completely read through the whole thread.

I myself live in France and couldn't find any info, didn't look in the right places.

2 helpful members here kindly pointed me in the right direction and I phoned the company up.

The lady told me that this object dates back to the 60s...

If your French is any good why not give her a ring yourself if you need proof? (Rob has found the number and you can find it in the thread)

Kindest respects

Rodinus

originally posted by: Rodinus
Psy i quote you here :

"This is NOT an item from the 1950's or 1960's.

I can't believe anyone could think otherwise.

Pull tabs, moulding lines, precision details and even the labelling and typeface did NOT exist at that time.

I sincerely fear for ATS that no one has pointed this out."



It seems that you did not completely read through the whole thread.

I myself live in France and couldn't find any info, didn't look in the right places.

2 helpful members here kindly pointed me in the right direction and I phoned the company up.

The lady told me that this object dates back to the 60s...

If your French is any good why not give her a ring yourself if you need proof? (Rob has found the number and you can find it in the thread)

Kindest respects

Rodinus

Rod, the "lady" was mistaken.

a reply to: Psynic

Right. care to tackle the phone number issue?

a reply to: Psynic

I try not to get drawn into discussions with trolls, but I fail to see why this could not date from the 1960s. It looks like a pretty simple injection-moulded plastic tube, to me.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Psynic

I try not to get drawn into discussions with trolls, but I fail to see why this could not date from the 1960s. It looks like a pretty simple injection-moulded plastic tube, to me.

I try not to get drawn into discussions with trolls either.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Psynic

Right. care to tackle the phone number issue?

Somebody is listening to too many telephone receptionists.

a reply to: Psynic

So, if you know what it is and when it was made, why not just tell us and stop being so cryptic? It's not impressing anybody.

a reply to: Psynic

Ha, yea, well, see, in the long ago, phone numbers looked different than they do today. In the US we had local exchanges, but we came up with too many people and not enough numbers, so we had to expand. I assume the same thing happened in the UK and France. Perhaps Rod can enlighten us on the numbers thing there and when I may have changed. But I am pretty sure there is no way to dial the number on the tag.

So please, enlighten us as to why a modern product would have a very old phone number?

a reply to: network dude
Well, Rod probably knows more than I, as he lives in France, but the phone number format only dates it to pre-1985 as far as I can tell. (Seven-digit numbers changed to eight digits in that year.)

But the container certainly looks older than 1980s, so I can believe that the woman he spoke to is correct.

Fire engine red should have been the first clue.

The precision of the moulding and unfaded condition of the plastic are obvious signs of the manufacture date.

The type face was not used until at least the '70s.

Plastic lids did not have the deep and precise fluting evident in this cap.

Pull tabs. In this case the vivid yellow strip with the large handle on it were not around in the '50s and '60s.

Pesticides and Herbicides always have the warning symbol for POISON.

The raised lines on the surface of the applicator is a recent innovation seen on several other products and plastic items.

The overall form of the object is consistent with a device designed to sprinkle baking soda and be stored in a prominent position in a vertical alignment, exactly like all other fire extinguishers.

In an emergency the idea is it's usage would be self evident, and I believe the designer has achieved that objective.

Thankfully the inability to identify a fire extinguisher didn't result in any casualties though I would suggest that Rod junior return this ancient relic to the maison he and his mates removed it from.

a reply to: Psynic

Right, In case you hadn't noticed, in the fourth reply to this thread I said "Could it be some kind of dry powder extinguisher?"

if you knew all along then why not say what it is rather than flinging insults and acting all mysterious?

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Psynic

I try not to get drawn into discussions with trolls, but I fail to see why this could not date from the 1960s.pretty simple

Who's "flinging insults"?