X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-m20.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.1] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.3) with ESMTP id 1353822 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:23:23 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.1; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-m20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.6.) id q.c21.26fd0da (32915) for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:22:36 -0400 (EDT) From: WRJJRS@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:22:36 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: OT: Gardenhose as level To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1156825356" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5032 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1156825356 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/28/2006 6:37:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, bobperk@bellsouth.net writes: Bob, I've always wondered how a laser level could be more accurate than a water level. I'm not disputing the claim but I've never understood how its possible. I'll explain my quandry.. a laser level is only as level as the little bubble will make it. I've found some that aren't even close to level when they 'say' they are. A water level [ all things concidered like bubbles and wind] will sit perfectly level once properly set up, we know that water will seek its own level. I'm not convinced that a laser level is better. Am I missing something?? Curious is all :) Jarrett Jarrett, Some of the Laser companies have rotating levels that self level using a spherical track and rotating. I have one and can attest that the thing does a great job. Did my barn foundation with it. My friend is a surveyor and shot the foundation for practice and said it was within 1/8"! (24' x 36') He was supprised. The water level will work of course with patience. Bill Jepson -------------------------------1156825356 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 8/28/2006 6:37:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,=20 bobperk@bellsouth.net writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>Bob,=20 I've always wondered how a laser level could be more accurate than a
wa= ter=20 level. I'm not disputing the claim but I've never understood how=20 its
possible. I'll explain my quandry..  a laser level is only as=20 level as the
little bubble will make it. I've found some that aren't ev= en=20 close to level
when they 'say' they are.  A water level [ all thin= gs=20 concidered like
bubbles and wind] will sit perfectly level  once=20 properly set up, we know
that water will seek its own level. I'm not=20 convinced that a laser level is
better. Am I missing=20 something??

Curious is all =20 :)

Jarrett
Jarrett, Some of the Laser companies have rotating levels that self lev= el=20 using a spherical track and rotating. I have one and can attest that the thi= ng=20 does a great job. Did my barn foundation with it. My friend is a surveyor an= d=20 shot the foundation for practice and said it was within 1/8"! (24' x 36') He= was=20 supprised. The water level will work of course with patience.
Bill Jepson
-------------------------------1156825356--