yall missed me!!!!!! i feel so loved!!!!!

me! wrote:
> Hmmm,, I thought you were a Bush supporter....
>
>
i am, but i have a right as a human being to not agree with everything...

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>I doubt very seriously that the engineers involved in the evolution of
>>the air bag said to each other one day: "You know guys - this pure
>>nitrogen inflation gas works well, but it's too safe. We need to come
>>up with some additonal components that will hurt people and make them
>>sick." There had to be some technical reason that the other stuff was
>>added - like maybe to make the proper firing more reliable, or more
>>consistent over a very broad temperature range, or to prevent material
>>deterioration - you know - something besides "Lets' make this dangerous
>>for people". Usually when something that has some known downsides is
>>incorporated, it's to gain an even greater benefit.
>
>
> ...lower production cost.

You're sure of that - they added these chemical to or instead of pure
nitrogen to cut costs? In what way would that cut costs? Any
documentation of that?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>I doubt very seriously that the engineers involved in the evolution of
>>the air bag said to each other one day: "You know guys - this pure
>>nitrogen inflation gas works well, but it's too safe. We need to come
>>up with some additonal components that will hurt people and make them
>>sick." There had to be some technical reason that the other stuff was
>>added - like maybe to make the proper firing more reliable, or more
>>consistent over a very broad temperature range, or to prevent material
>>deterioration - you know - something besides "Lets' make this dangerous
>>for people". Usually when something that has some known downsides is
>>incorporated, it's to gain an even greater benefit.
>
>
> ...lower production cost.

You're sure of that - they added these chemical to or instead of pure
nitrogen to cut costs? In what way would that cut costs? Any
documentation of that?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---