| |
Main
Date: 16 Sep 2007 23:12:12
From: Jambo
Subject: New jim beam claims
|
Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
school".
It's quite obvious from his posts that he's neither. His usage of
terminologies that aren't used by metallurgists, his juvenile understanding
of scientific methodologies, and the obviously made up experiences and
contrived "data" he produces make all this clear.
I'm struggling to find out what the payback is for you for this fraud,
beamboy. Does it matter to you when you give bad advice to people here,
most of whom, after all, are honestly seeking advice they're likely to use
in real life, or is the notion that they may take your bad advice the reward
for you, regardless that it serves them badly? Obviously you feel that you
can get away with fraud since you have an anonymous presence in this n.g.,
but what's the payback for bleating false information? Is acknowledgement
of others that you're some sort of technical guru the payback itself? Maybe
trying to be known as some sort of maverick, the "rebel" who rails against
the system, is your kick, however misguided and wrong you may be? Is this
what tickles your fancy? Or maybe you're living out in this newsgroup what
you can't achieve in real life?
Let's hear the real story, beamboy.
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 03:39:21
From:
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sep 21, 8:41 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <timmcn-AFE998.12055220092...@news.iphouse.com>,
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <1190291557.769429.23...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > peteymi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 19, 1:32 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > > > Don't reveal that you didn't take advantage of higher education.
> > > > What one should learn in those years is WHY rather than how.
> > > > Mechanics work on machines daily and know how to make them work,
> > > > but don't understand the science behind those failures... as we see
> > > > here often enough.
>
> > > > While working in Stuttgart, an NSU Wankel drove into our research
> > > > yard as we looked down from the design office. I said at that
> > > > time: "Mark my words, that engine will not survive on the market."
> > > > to the amazement of my colleagues, all engineers of one ilk or
> > > > another. I could say that because I had been exposed to the theory
> > > > of operation of internal combustion engines, a dull subject to most
> > > > auto aficionados but well worth the time.
>
> > > > Unfortunately, today the rush to "get on with reality" has shifted
> > > > the emphasis to a trade school approach, spending much time on
> > > > current hardware.
>
> > > > It makes a difference. The theory offered in good engineering
> > > > schools is worth a lot and experience reinforces those principals.
> > > > I have come across many of these instances in my work. For
> > > > instance,the failures of the Shay steam locomotive was never
> > > > understood in more than 100 years of service, yet it jumped out at
> > > > me when reviewing derailment pictures and reading about them, so I
> > > > wrote about it:
>
> > > >http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/grd_loco.html
>
> > > > Jobst Brandt
>
> > > This example doesn't seem to rely too much on theory and could easily
> > > be diagnosed by someone with good practical knowledge and no formal
> > > training. Intelligent people can pick up theory just as they can
> > > pick up practical knowledge.
>
> > You're talking about people being able to apply inductive versus
> > deductive reasoning. Unfortunately we do not require taking a class in
> > logic in order to graduate from high school (IMHO the single biggest
> > improvement we could make to our educational system is to teach logic).
> > Unless the "intelligent person" has an understanding of how different
> > types of logic work, they have a high risk of coming to an erroneous
> > conclusion.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
>
> > (interestingly enough, the latter article is not as well written).
>
> > In the case of engineering, knowing the principles can significantly
> > speed up analysis and can reduce the number of trial-and-error
> > iterations needed in product development.
>
> I support teaching Euclidean plane geometry. One of the
> necessary skills constructing mathematical proofs is
> suspicion of ones own devices. We learn to doubt every
> step of our proposed proof. It is humbling to see how
> puny one's own abilities are. Euclidean plane geometry
> teaches how to construct a logical, articulated
> argument. Once a student can find his own logical
> fallacies, finding them in the arguments of others is
> free. The benefit of geometry over a logic course is
> that geometry brings geometric figures into it and they
> are worth studying in and of themselves.
>
> --
> Michael Press
One thing I thought lacking in my undergraduate education was a
required statistics course. Nothing can truly be known with
certainty--when comparing theory with actual measurements, statistics
are essential and many scientists only have a rudimentary or very
applied knowledge of statistics. OK, I just contradicted myself. But
that's not to say we can't learn the theory later on. But then again,
most of us are lazy... (at least I am)
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 09:19:25
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article <1190371161.342376.76890@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
peteymills@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 21, 8:41 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article <timmcn-AFE998.12055220092...@news.iphouse.com>,
> > Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <1190291557.769429.23...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > > peteymi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > This example doesn't seem to rely too much on theory and could
> > > > easily be diagnosed by someone with good practical knowledge
> > > > and no formal training. Intelligent people can pick up theory
> > > > just as they can pick up practical knowledge.
> >
> > > You're talking about people being able to apply inductive versus
> > > deductive reasoning. Unfortunately we do not require taking a
> > > class in logic in order to graduate from high school (IMHO the
> > > single biggest improvement we could make to our educational
> > > system is to teach logic). Unless the "intelligent person" has an
> > > understanding of how different types of logic work, they have a
> > > high risk of coming to an erroneous conclusion.
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
> >
> > > (interestingly enough, the latter article is not as well
> > > written).
> >
> > > In the case of engineering, knowing the principles can
> > > significantly speed up analysis and can reduce the number of
> > > trial-and-error iterations needed in product development.
> >
> > I support teaching Euclidean plane geometry. One of the necessary
> > skills constructing mathematical proofs is suspicion of ones own
> > devices. We learn to doubt every step of our proposed proof. It is
> > humbling to see how puny one's own abilities are. Euclidean plane
> > geometry teaches how to construct a logical, articulated argument.
> > Once a student can find his own logical fallacies, finding them in
> > the arguments of others is free. The benefit of geometry over a
> > logic course is that geometry brings geometric figures into it and
> > they are worth studying in and of themselves.
>
> One thing I thought lacking in my undergraduate education was a
> required statistics course. Nothing can truly be known with
> certainty--when comparing theory with actual measurements, statistics
> are essential and many scientists only have a rudimentary or very
> applied knowledge of statistics. OK, I just contradicted myself.
> But that's not to say we can't learn the theory later on. But then
> again, most of us are lazy... (at least I am)
Well, I think what we are slowly pointing towards is that we do a
terrible job of teaching fundamental thinking skills to students from
kindergarten through college. Math and science of course fall under
this very broad category. Every student should graduate from high
school with a sound grasp of arithmetic and the basics of algebraic
logic and of geometry, of basic physics and biology and chemistry, and
being able to read and write at a level sufficient for effective
communication with others. I think we fall short of the mark in the
majority of cases. I hadn't thought about including a basic
understanding of statistics as an undergrad requisite- it's an
interesting notion.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 14:35:20
From: Ben C
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On 2007-09-21, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
[...]
> Every student should graduate from high school with a sound grasp of
> arithmetic and the basics of algebraic logic and of geometry, of basic
> physics and biology and chemistry, and being able to read and write at
> a level sufficient for effective communication with others.
You forgot Latin.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 21:50:54
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article <slrnffarjb.5v4.spamspam@bowser.marioworld >,
Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote:
> On 2007-09-21, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: [...]
> > Every student should graduate from high school with a sound grasp
> > of arithmetic and the basics of algebraic logic and of geometry, of
> > basic physics and biology and chemistry, and being able to read and
> > write at a level sufficient for effective communication with
> > others.
>
> You forgot Latin.
I've never thought Latin was an essential part of a high school
education. It's pretty irrelevant.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 12:59:14
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-328C0A.21505422092007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <slrnffarjb.5v4.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
> > On 2007-09-21, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: [...]
> > > Every student should graduate from high school with a sound grasp
> > > of arithmetic and the basics of algebraic logic and of geometry, of
> > > basic physics and biology and chemistry, and being able to read and
> > > write at a level sufficient for effective communication with
> > > others.
> >
> > You forgot Latin.
>
> I've never thought Latin was an essential part of a high school
> education. It's pretty irrelevant.
Au contraire... from French, from Middle English contrarie, from
Anglo-Norman, from Latin contrârius : contrâ, against
A good portion of English and other European languages are based on Latin.
Almost all names in biology are from Greek or Latin. Latin is used in a
lot of other scientific endeavors.
....then there is the Catholic Church.
Chas.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 19:32:18
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article <tN-dnfUYhI9jWWvbnZ2dnUVZ_qCgnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-328C0A.21505422092007@news.iphouse.com...
> > In article <slrnffarjb.5v4.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
> > Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2007-09-21, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: [...]
> > > > Every student should graduate from high school with a sound
> > > > grasp of arithmetic and the basics of algebraic logic and of
> > > > geometry, of basic physics and biology and chemistry, and being
> > > > able to read and write at a level sufficient for effective
> > > > communication with others.
> > >
> > > You forgot Latin.
> >
> > I've never thought Latin was an essential part of a high school
> > education. It's pretty irrelevant.
>
> Au contraire... from French, from Middle English contrarie, from
> Anglo-Norman, from Latin contrârius : contrâ, against
>
> A good portion of English and other European languages are based on
> Latin.
Which is perhaps interesting as a hobby but irrelevant to actually
speaking English. Latin's a dead language, time to move on.
> Almost all names in biology are from Greek or Latin. Latin is used in
> a lot of other scientific endeavors.
Only to obfuscate.
> ....then there is the Catholic Church.
No thanks, I'm recovering.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 15:10:30
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> [...]
>> Every student should graduate from high school with a sound grasp of
>> arithmetic and the basics of algebraic logic and of geometry, of basic
>> physics and biology and chemistry, and being able to read and write at
>> a level sufficient for effective communication with others.
Ben C wrote:
> You forgot Latin.
I don't know if you're kidding or not but that was the most rewarding
thing I've ever undertaken. After I dropped out I'd sit in on Latin class.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 04:23:04
From: Ben C
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On 2007-09-22, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Every student should graduate from high school with a sound grasp of
>>> arithmetic and the basics of algebraic logic and of geometry, of basic
>>> physics and biology and chemistry, and being able to read and write at
>>> a level sufficient for effective communication with others.
>
> Ben C wrote:
>> You forgot Latin.
>
> I don't know if you're kidding or not but that was the most rewarding
> thing I've ever undertaken. After I dropped out I'd sit in on Latin class.
I was sort of half-kidding. I enjoyed Latin too and would recommend it
to anyone. The point is that it has no obvious point but is still a good
thing to learn in school.
This makes me think twice about saying "every student should learn X or
Y". Perhaps what people who learn Latin learn is that it doesn't much
matter what you learn.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:06:51
From: John Dacey
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Nosse velint omnes, mercedem solvere nemo." - Juvenal
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 04:23:04 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> You forgot Latin.
>>
>> I don't know if you're kidding or not but that was the most rewarding
>> thing I've ever undertaken. After I dropped out I'd sit in on Latin class.
>
>I was sort of half-kidding. I enjoyed Latin too and would recommend it
>to anyone. The point is that it has no obvious point but is still a good
>thing to learn in school.
How I long for the halcyon (not a latin root) days of high school
detention spent translating Caesar's wars and the umpteen Catalinian
Orations which whined about one perceived grievance or another.
My own interest in Latin was rekindled a few years ago, prompted by a
post a few years ago by Sheldon Brown (who apparently speaks Latin
like the native of Olympus that he is) wherein he proudly proclaimed
"I think I am a brifter" (Cogito ergo sum). Since then, I've tried to
preface some of my posts with a Latin tag -- the research for which
helps assuage some of the guilt from frittering away time to
rec.bike.tech.
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
Phone: 305-273-4440
http://www.businesscycles.com
-------------------------------
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 12:26:15
From: Jay Hill
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
John Dacey wrote:
> post a few years ago by Sheldon Brown (who apparently speaks Latin
> like the native of Olympus that he is)
Um, maybe soemthing closer to Latin-land? Vesuvious perhaps?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 12:26:15
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Jay Hill" <jshill@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:13fd8e547l4phef@corp.supernews.com...
> John Dacey wrote:
> > post a few years ago by Sheldon Brown (who apparently speaks Latin
> > like the native of Olympus that he is)
>
> Um, maybe soemthing closer to Latin-land? Vesuvious perhaps?
"God bless Vespucci Land...." Amerigo Vespucci
Chas.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 14:06:29
From:
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:35:20 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote:
>On 2007-09-21, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>[...]
>> Every student should graduate from high school with a sound grasp of
>> arithmetic and the basics of algebraic logic and of geometry, of basic
>> physics and biology and chemistry, and being able to read and write at
>> a level sufficient for effective communication with others.
>
>You forgot Latin.
Dear Ben,
Even worse, the crucial differences between Elzabethan and Jacobean
drama were forgotten! Sometimes I despair when I see people struggling
to get through life while lumping Marlowe and Jonson together . . .
The belief that everyone else should be thoroughly well-educated is
held most firmly by those of us who believe that we are thoroughly
well-educated and enjoyed the process so much that we went on to
colleges and universities--which is more and more what high schools
prepare students for.
It often escaped our notice that there were large numbers of excellent
people right next to us who were delighted to have finished their
12-year sentences in government education camps.
Whenever I read about all the desperately important things that high
school is supposed to teach, I remember that no one ever includes the
ability to work a cash register, which was the skill most likely to be
immediately useful to the students.
A high school is a place where students are supposedly taught the
basic skills needed to get through life--including expecting janitors
to keep everything clean.
If you want to be taught how keep yourself, your equipment, and your
quarters clean, you have to join the army.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 02:40:00
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article
<3bsaf3t7ij47k5klegj7e8kku21lpdaff8@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:35:20 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
> >On 2007-09-21, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >[...]
> >> Every student should graduate from high school with a sound grasp of
> >> arithmetic and the basics of algebraic logic and of geometry, of basic
> >> physics and biology and chemistry, and being able to read and write at
> >> a level sufficient for effective communication with others.
> >
> >You forgot Latin.
>
> Even worse, the crucial differences between Elzabethan and Jacobean
> drama were forgotten! Sometimes I despair when I see people struggling
> to get through life while lumping Marlowe and Jonson together . . .
What makes an Elizabethan dramatist?
Marlowe and Jonson both wrote plays during the reign of
Elizabeth I.
(I highly recommend Marlowe's _Faust_.
That dreary Goethe is no fun at all. )
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 21:56:03
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article <3bsaf3t7ij47k5klegj7e8kku21lpdaff8@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> The belief that everyone else should be thoroughly well-educated is
> held most firmly by those of us who believe that we are thoroughly
> well-educated and enjoyed the process so much that we went on to
> colleges and universities--which is more and more what high schools
> prepare students for.
Yes, you make a good point. The myth of "No child Left Behind" so
resoundingly introduced by Bill Clinton in a SotU address and then
pushed by GWB overlooks the simple fact that about half of all high
school students are of below average academic ability. For them college
is really not a realistic option.
I also recall a report in Time Magazine earlier this year or some time
last year regarding the astonishingly high rate of students not
finishing high school.
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 08:46:06
From:
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sep 20, 7:17 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net > wrote:
> peteymi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 1:32 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >> It makes a difference. The theory offered in good engineering schools
> >> is worth a lot and experience reinforces those principals. I have
> >> come across many of these instances in my work. For instance,the
> >> failures of the Shay steam locomotive was never understood in more
> >> than 100 years of service, yet it jumped out at me when reviewing
> >> derailment pictures and reading about them, so I wrote about it:
>
> >>http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/grd_loco.html
>
> >> Jobst Brandt
>
> > This example doesn't seem to rely too much on theory and could easily
> > be diagnosed by someone with good practical knowledge and no formal
> > training. Intelligent people can pick up theory just as they can pick
> > up practical knowledge. In any case, sometimes I wonder if there
> > isn't too much emphasis on theory.
>
> A lot of "theory" involves rather subtle concepts that take a long time
> to fully grasp. This isn't to say that theory isn't accessible just from
> reading the right books, just that it's not simply "cookbook" (lookup
> facts).
>
> It's often difficult to impossible to discuss common phenomena without
> an understanding of these principles. A recent example which comes to
> mind was a long debate about spoke tension and its measurement via
> tensiometer or direct measurement of spoke deflection when weighted at
> mid-span. Skeptics wouldn't accept the equivalence of the methods simply
> because they couldn't grasp vectors and free body diagrams. Similarly,
> calculus isn't obvious or easy to grasp, otherwise the world wouldn't
> have had to wait for Newton to come along.
>
> In Jobst's problem, it's obvious that a solution was designed, but an
> inadequate one. A successful design would have predicted the actual
> forces and accommodated them. It might have been achieved via trial and
> error or simple over-engineering, but those options are impractical in
> the application. The devil is in the details. The details are only
> visible with a rigorous model, which involves techniques far beyond
> intuition.
>
> Usually there are so many confounding issues in real world problems that
> the genius is in knowing what to discard as irrelevant. It may seem
> simple after the fact. A classic example is Feynman's analysis of the
> Challenger incident.
JB's example is an excellent illustration of the maxim, "A picture is
worth a thousand words!"
Another excellent example of over-emphasis on theory was a climate-
related paper in which the auther was trying to prove that the El Nino
phenomenon could be represented as an iterated linear system with
noise (or a set of linear ODEs with noise--same thing). I became
frustrated reading it because he performed all kinds of obscure
mathematical contortions to try and prove that the model was valid
instead of just building the model and testing it to see if it
worked. No matter how rigorously you can show that your assumptions
are valid, if the model has no predictive power, what use is it? In
the end I'm not sure if it worked or if he even bothered to build his
model at all! Many scientists use these kinds of tricks to obscure
bad results.
To some extent I think that theory in the form of formal training also
acts as a straight-jacket--limiting the types of approach we apply to
a problem and even the types of problems we try to solve. Most
technical ideas are based on only a limited set of tools--usually one
tries to think of things in terms of calculus or algebra, because
these are the only building blocks we've learned. What if there are
other, equally valid ways of understanding a problem? I remember
being very impressed with Robert Shaw's use of probability theory
applied to chaotic dynamics. Only later did I realize that it was
equivalent to the more usual application of sets and set theory.
I think there are a lot of people who have a good intuitive grasp of
theory without being able to put it into words. But in principle I
agree with you--you need both to be able to do good work.
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 05:32:37
From:
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sep 19, 1:32 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Ben C? writes:
> >>> In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
> >>> frequently advanced degrees in the field.
> >> I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
> >> sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an
> >> academic degree in something.
> > I've met two F1 engineers. Both were very interesting and
> > intelligent. One had degrees in all the kinds of thing you would
> > expect, the other had none-- his education consisted of a lifetime
> > of souping up Fords.
> > I asked him about this and he said most teams have a mix of the two
> > kinds of people.
> > However good a university might be most people are only there for a
> > few years during which they are young and quite often drunk. I don't
> > understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than
> > in the rest of their lives.
>
> Don't reveal that you didn't take advantage of higher education. What
> one should learn in those years is WHY rather than how. Mechanics
> work on machines daily and know how to make them work, but don't
> understand the science behind those failures... as we see here often
> enough.
>
> While working in Stuttgart, an NSU Wankel drove into our research yard
> as we looked down from the design office. I said at that time: "Mark
> my words, that engine will not survive on the market." to the
> amazement of my colleagues, all engineers of one ilk or another. I
> could say that because I had been exposed to the theory of operation
> of internal combustion engines, a dull subject to most auto
> aficionados but well worth the time.
>
> Unfortunately, today the rush to "get on with reality" has shifted the
> emphasis to a trade school approach, spending much time on current
> hardware.
>
> It makes a difference. The theory offered in good engineering schools
> is worth a lot and experience reinforces those principals. I have
> come across many of these instances in my work. For instance,the
> failures of the Shay steam locomotive was never understood in more
> than 100 years of service, yet it jumped out at me when reviewing
> derailment pictures and reading about them, so I wrote about it:
>
> http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/grd_loco.html
>
> Jobst Brandt
This example doesn't seem to rely too much on theory and could easily
be diagnosed by someone with good practical knowledge and no formal
training. Intelligent people can pick up theory just as they can pick
up practical knowledge. In any case, sometimes I wonder if there
isn't too much emphasis on theory. I remember one examination
question that I failed to answer because I was trying for a "rigorous,
analytical" approach. We were required to predict the concentration
of a tracer with an initial Gaussian distribution advected by a
constant flow and under the action of diffusion. Of course if you
just think about this intuitively, the centre of the Gaussian will
move at the same speed as the flow and the width will vary in
proportion to the diffusion coefficient. This is all the instructor
required from us, but to show this analytically would take between one
and three pages of math, depending on the level of rigor and how many
steps you skip.
An even better example involves the retrieval algorithm I developed
for water vapour. In the process, I developed a statistical
classification algorithm that I then went on to compare to another
method call Support Vector Machines. In spite of the fact that SVM is
justified at a very abstract level using pages and pages of high level
mathematics, I found that my method was considerably faster and
probably more accurate, despite being created in an initially ad-hoc
manner--in fact it can be summarized in roughly five lines. I was
able to find theoretical justifications for most of my approach, but
chiefly after the fact.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 12:05:57
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article <1190291557.769429.23980@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
peteymills@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 19, 1:32 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > Don't reveal that you didn't take advantage of higher education.
> > What one should learn in those years is WHY rather than how.
> > Mechanics work on machines daily and know how to make them work,
> > but don't understand the science behind those failures... as we see
> > here often enough.
> >
> > While working in Stuttgart, an NSU Wankel drove into our research
> > yard as we looked down from the design office. I said at that
> > time: "Mark my words, that engine will not survive on the market."
> > to the amazement of my colleagues, all engineers of one ilk or
> > another. I could say that because I had been exposed to the theory
> > of operation of internal combustion engines, a dull subject to most
> > auto aficionados but well worth the time.
> >
> > Unfortunately, today the rush to "get on with reality" has shifted
> > the emphasis to a trade school approach, spending much time on
> > current hardware.
> >
> > It makes a difference. The theory offered in good engineering
> > schools is worth a lot and experience reinforces those principals.
> > I have come across many of these instances in my work. For
> > instance,the failures of the Shay steam locomotive was never
> > understood in more than 100 years of service, yet it jumped out at
> > me when reviewing derailment pictures and reading about them, so I
> > wrote about it:
> >
> > http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/grd_loco.html
> >
> > Jobst Brandt
>
> This example doesn't seem to rely too much on theory and could easily
> be diagnosed by someone with good practical knowledge and no formal
> training. Intelligent people can pick up theory just as they can
> pick up practical knowledge.
You're talking about people being able to apply inductive versus
deductive reasoning. Unfortunately we do not require taking a class in
logic in order to graduate from high school (IMHO the single biggest
improvement we could make to our educational system is to teach logic).
Unless the "intelligent person" has an understanding of how different
types of logic work, they have a high risk of coming to an erroneous
conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
(interestingly enough, the latter article is not as well written).
In the case of engineering, knowing the principles can significantly
speed up analysis and can reduce the number of trial-and-error
iterations needed in product development.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 23:41:01
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article
<timmcn-AFE998.12055220092007@news.iphouse.com >,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1190291557.769429.23980@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> peteymills@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Sep 19, 1:32 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > > Don't reveal that you didn't take advantage of higher education.
> > > What one should learn in those years is WHY rather than how.
> > > Mechanics work on machines daily and know how to make them work,
> > > but don't understand the science behind those failures... as we see
> > > here often enough.
> > >
> > > While working in Stuttgart, an NSU Wankel drove into our research
> > > yard as we looked down from the design office. I said at that
> > > time: "Mark my words, that engine will not survive on the market."
> > > to the amazement of my colleagues, all engineers of one ilk or
> > > another. I could say that because I had been exposed to the theory
> > > of operation of internal combustion engines, a dull subject to most
> > > auto aficionados but well worth the time.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, today the rush to "get on with reality" has shifted
> > > the emphasis to a trade school approach, spending much time on
> > > current hardware.
> > >
> > > It makes a difference. The theory offered in good engineering
> > > schools is worth a lot and experience reinforces those principals.
> > > I have come across many of these instances in my work. For
> > > instance,the failures of the Shay steam locomotive was never
> > > understood in more than 100 years of service, yet it jumped out at
> > > me when reviewing derailment pictures and reading about them, so I
> > > wrote about it:
> > >
> > > http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/grd_loco.html
> > >
> > > Jobst Brandt
> >
> > This example doesn't seem to rely too much on theory and could easily
> > be diagnosed by someone with good practical knowledge and no formal
> > training. Intelligent people can pick up theory just as they can
> > pick up practical knowledge.
>
> You're talking about people being able to apply inductive versus
> deductive reasoning. Unfortunately we do not require taking a class in
> logic in order to graduate from high school (IMHO the single biggest
> improvement we could make to our educational system is to teach logic).
> Unless the "intelligent person" has an understanding of how different
> types of logic work, they have a high risk of coming to an erroneous
> conclusion.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
>
> (interestingly enough, the latter article is not as well written).
>
> In the case of engineering, knowing the principles can significantly
> speed up analysis and can reduce the number of trial-and-error
> iterations needed in product development.
I support teaching Euclidean plane geometry. One of the
necessary skills constructing mathematical proofs is
suspicion of ones own devices. We learn to doubt every
step of our proposed proof. It is humbling to see how
puny one's own abilities are. Euclidean plane geometry
teaches how to construct a logical, articulated
argument. Once a student can find his own logical
fallacies, finding them in the arguments of others is
free. The benefit of geometry over a logic course is
that geometry brings geometric figures into it and they
are worth studying in and of themselves.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 08:52:29
From:
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Corruptissima republica, plurimae leges." - Tacitus
> >here with a new mini-laptop. Staying at "The Ankler's Rest" (apologies
> >to PGW and CF) a few blocks up the street from you (although likely
> >just another link in the chain of Perfecto-Zizzbaum hotels). I'll hope
> >to see you again somewhere along the aisles of the show displays.
> Dear John,
>
> "The Duke of Marlborough, whose wedding with Miss Consuelo Vanderbilt
> is arranged for next month, was arrested yesterday, while cycling in
> Central Park. He violated a Park ordinance by "coasting" down the hill
> near McGown's Pass."
>
> NYT Oct. 19, 1895
> The Duke neglected the elementary precaution of giving a false name
> when arrested.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Serves him right.
Yours,
Freddie Widgeon
***********************************************************
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
Phone: 305-273-4440
http://www.businesscycles.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 09:14:03
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article <rubrum-7200BE.23410120092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net >,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article <timmcn-AFE998.12055220092007@news.iphouse.com>,
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <1190291557.769429.23980@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > peteymills@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 19, 1:32 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > > > Don't reveal that you didn't take advantage of higher
> > > > education. What one should learn in those years is WHY rather
> > > > than how. Mechanics work on machines daily and know how to
> > > > make them work, but don't understand the science behind those
> > > > failures... as we see here often enough.
> > > >
> > > > While working in Stuttgart, an NSU Wankel drove into our
> > > > research yard as we looked down from the design office. I said
> > > > at that time: "Mark my words, that engine will not survive on
> > > > the market." to the amazement of my colleagues, all engineers
> > > > of one ilk or another. I could say that because I had been
> > > > exposed to the theory of operation of internal combustion
> > > > engines, a dull subject to most auto aficionados but well worth
> > > > the time.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, today the rush to "get on with reality" has
> > > > shifted the emphasis to a trade school approach, spending much
> > > > time on current hardware.
> > > >
> > > > It makes a difference. The theory offered in good engineering
> > > > schools is worth a lot and experience reinforces those
> > > > principals. I have come across many of these instances in my
> > > > work. For instance,the failures of the Shay steam locomotive
> > > > was never understood in more than 100 years of service, yet it
> > > > jumped out at me when reviewing derailment pictures and reading
> > > > about them, so I wrote about it:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/grd_loco.html
> > > >
> > > > Jobst Brandt
> > >
> > > This example doesn't seem to rely too much on theory and could
> > > easily be diagnosed by someone with good practical knowledge and
> > > no formal training. Intelligent people can pick up theory just
> > > as they can pick up practical knowledge.
> >
> > You're talking about people being able to apply inductive versus
> > deductive reasoning. Unfortunately we do not require taking a
> > class in logic in order to graduate from high school (IMHO the
> > single biggest improvement we could make to our educational system
> > is to teach logic). Unless the "intelligent person" has an
> > understanding of how different types of logic work, they have a
> > high risk of coming to an erroneous conclusion.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
> >
> > (interestingly enough, the latter article is not as well written).
> >
> > In the case of engineering, knowing the principles can
> > significantly speed up analysis and can reduce the number of
> > trial-and-error iterations needed in product development.
>
> I support teaching Euclidean plane geometry. One of the necessary
> skills constructing mathematical proofs is suspicion of ones own
> devices. We learn to doubt every step of our proposed proof. It is
> humbling to see how puny one's own abilities are. Euclidean plane
> geometry teaches how to construct a logical, articulated argument.
> Once a student can find his own logical fallacies, finding them in
> the arguments of others is free. The benefit of geometry over a logic
> course is that geometry brings geometric figures into it and they are
> worth studying in and of themselves.
While that is true, the difficulty is in making sure that the students
understand that this is logical analysis and not just math problems.
This is something my high school math teachers failed to do in my
algebra, geometry and advanced algebra/trigonometry classes. I got more
of the sense of the broader implications of those processes elsewhere.
I think that a class in formal logic would be (1) simpler and (2) more
likely to be generalized by the average student.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 18:31:06
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <rubrum-7200BE.23410120092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <timmcn-AFE998.12055220092007@news.iphouse.com>,
>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1190291557.769429.23980@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>> peteymills@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 19, 1:32 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>>>> Don't reveal that you didn't take advantage of higher
>>>>> education. What one should learn in those years is WHY rather
>>>>> than how. Mechanics work on machines daily and know how to
>>>>> make them work, but don't understand the science behind those
>>>>> failures... as we see here often enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> While working in Stuttgart, an NSU Wankel drove into our
>>>>> research yard as we looked down from the design office. I said
>>>>> at that time: "Mark my words, that engine will not survive on
>>>>> the market." to the amazement of my colleagues, all engineers
>>>>> of one ilk or another. I could say that because I had been
>>>>> exposed to the theory of operation of internal combustion
>>>>> engines, a dull subject to most auto aficionados but well worth
>>>>> the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, today the rush to "get on with reality" has
>>>>> shifted the emphasis to a trade school approach, spending much
>>>>> time on current hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes a difference. The theory offered in good engineering
>>>>> schools is worth a lot and experience reinforces those
>>>>> principals. I have come across many of these instances in my
>>>>> work. For instance,the failures of the Shay steam locomotive
>>>>> was never understood in more than 100 years of service, yet it
>>>>> jumped out at me when reviewing derailment pictures and reading
>>>>> about them, so I wrote about it:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/grd_loco.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Jobst Brandt
>>>> This example doesn't seem to rely too much on theory and could
>>>> easily be diagnosed by someone with good practical knowledge and
>>>> no formal training. Intelligent people can pick up theory just
>>>> as they can pick up practical knowledge.
>>> You're talking about people being able to apply inductive versus
>>> deductive reasoning. Unfortunately we do not require taking a
>>> class in logic in order to graduate from high school (IMHO the
>>> single biggest improvement we could make to our educational system
>>> is to teach logic). Unless the "intelligent person" has an
>>> understanding of how different types of logic work, they have a
>>> high risk of coming to an erroneous conclusion.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
>>>
>>> (interestingly enough, the latter article is not as well written).
>>>
>>> In the case of engineering, knowing the principles can
>>> significantly speed up analysis and can reduce the number of
>>> trial-and-error iterations needed in product development.
>> I support teaching Euclidean plane geometry. One of the necessary
>> skills constructing mathematical proofs is suspicion of ones own
>> devices. We learn to doubt every step of our proposed proof. It is
>> humbling to see how puny one's own abilities are. Euclidean plane
>> geometry teaches how to construct a logical, articulated argument.
>> Once a student can find his own logical fallacies, finding them in
>> the arguments of others is free. The benefit of geometry over a logic
>> course is that geometry brings geometric figures into it and they are
>> worth studying in and of themselves.
>
> While that is true, the difficulty is in making sure that the students
> understand that this is logical analysis and not just math problems.
> This is something my high school math teachers failed to do in my
> algebra, geometry and advanced algebra/trigonometry classes. I got more
> of the sense of the broader implications of those processes elsewhere.
er, i don't think you did - 1600 ! > 5000!
> I think that a class in formal logic would be (1) simpler and (2) more
> likely to be generalized by the average student.
nothing that basic math wouldn't teach first.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 11:36:02
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:Gc6dnX0ON8nH7WnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> nothing that basic math wouldn't teach first.
Yeah, like "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an
elastic
deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%"
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 09:21:16
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:Gc6dnX0ON8nH7WnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> nothing that basic math wouldn't teach first.
>
> Yeah, like "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an
> elastic
> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%"
>
>
the guy that is dumb enough to think "mettalurgy" is a word is dumb
enough to take issue with a typo!!! you're an absolute and complete
fucking moron.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:26:58
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:n-qdnaMKbYbhD2vbnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> the guy that is dumb enough to think "mettalurgy" is a word is dumb enough
> to take issue with a typo!!! you're an absolute and complete fucking
> moron.
Just like "sikorski", "fine" instead of "find", and a legend who doesn't
know how to appropriately capitalise...
But yes, I see it all now.
"jim beam", r.b.t's legendary
- CF Fork Whisperer
- "Mettaleuregits" who attended "muterials skool" more than 30 years ago
- CIA Black Ops operative in Vietnam
- Privvy to CLASSIFIED military information on composites way before they
existed (Was it Bell? Was it "sikorski"? It's all CLASSIFIED)
Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
Okay?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 10:44:11
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:n-qdnaMKbYbhD2vbnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> the guy that is dumb enough to think "mettalurgy" is a word is dumb enough
>> to take issue with a typo!!! you're an absolute and complete fucking
>> moron.
>
> Just like "sikorski", "fine" instead of "find", and a legend who doesn't
> know how to appropriately capitalise...
>
> But yes, I see it all now.
>
> "jim beam", r.b.t's legendary
>
> - CF Fork Whisperer
> - "Mettaleuregits" who attended "muterials skool" more than 30 years ago
> - CIA Black Ops operative in Vietnam
> - Privvy to CLASSIFIED military information on composites way before they
> existed (Was it Bell? Was it "sikorski"? It's all CLASSIFIED)
>
> Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
> everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
>
> Okay?
>
>
moron!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 09:17:06
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-47FEEE.09140321092007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <rubrum-7200BE.23410120092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <timmcn-AFE998.12055220092007@news.iphouse.com>,
> > Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1190291557.769429.23980@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > > peteymills@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sep 19, 1:32 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > > > > Don't reveal that you didn't take advantage of higher
> > > > > education. What one should learn in those years is WHY rather
> > > > > than how. Mechanics work on machines daily and know how to
> > > > > make them work, but don't understand the science behind those
> > > > > failures... as we see here often enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > While working in Stuttgart, an NSU Wankel drove into our
> > > > > research yard as we looked down from the design office. I said
> > > > > at that time: "Mark my words, that engine will not survive on
> > > > > the market." to the amazement of my colleagues, all engineers
> > > > > of one ilk or another. I could say that because I had been
> > > > > exposed to the theory of operation of internal combustion
> > > > > engines, a dull subject to most auto aficionados but well worth
> > > > > the time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, today the rush to "get on with reality" has
> > > > > shifted the emphasis to a trade school approach, spending much
> > > > > time on current hardware.
> > > > >
> > > > > It makes a difference. The theory offered in good engineering
> > > > > schools is worth a lot and experience reinforces those
> > > > > principals. I have come across many of these instances in my
> > > > > work. For instance,the failures of the Shay steam locomotive
> > > > > was never understood in more than 100 years of service, yet it
> > > > > jumped out at me when reviewing derailment pictures and reading
> > > > > about them, so I wrote about it:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/grd_loco.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Jobst Brandt
> > > >
> > > > This example doesn't seem to rely too much on theory and could
> > > > easily be diagnosed by someone with good practical knowledge and
> > > > no formal training. Intelligent people can pick up theory just
> > > > as they can pick up practical knowledge.
> > >
> > > You're talking about people being able to apply inductive versus
> > > deductive reasoning. Unfortunately we do not require taking a
> > > class in logic in order to graduate from high school (IMHO the
> > > single biggest improvement we could make to our educational system
> > > is to teach logic). Unless the "intelligent person" has an
> > > understanding of how different types of logic work, they have a
> > > high risk of coming to an erroneous conclusion.
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
> > >
> > > (interestingly enough, the latter article is not as well written).
> > >
> > > In the case of engineering, knowing the principles can
> > > significantly speed up analysis and can reduce the number of
> > > trial-and-error iterations needed in product development.
> >
> > I support teaching Euclidean plane geometry. One of the necessary
> > skills constructing mathematical proofs is suspicion of ones own
> > devices. We learn to doubt every step of our proposed proof. It is
> > humbling to see how puny one's own abilities are. Euclidean plane
> > geometry teaches how to construct a logical, articulated argument.
> > Once a student can find his own logical fallacies, finding them in
> > the arguments of others is free. The benefit of geometry over a logic
> > course is that geometry brings geometric figures into it and they are
> > worth studying in and of themselves.
>
> While that is true, the difficulty is in making sure that the students
> understand that this is logical analysis and not just math problems.
> This is something my high school math teachers failed to do in my
> algebra, geometry and advanced algebra/trigonometry classes. I got more
> of the sense of the broader implications of those processes elsewhere.
> I think that a class in formal logic would be (1) simpler and (2) more
> likely to be generalized by the average student.
I went back to school to finish college at age 30. At the beginning of
each semester I'd sign up for a bunch of the same math courses and then go
to the first class to check out the instructors. Most of the time the
instructors were first year grad students many of whom had a poor command
of spoken English and little or no teaching experience.
Maybe they could communicate between each other just using their slide
rules but they weren't very good teachers to those of us who weren't math
whizzes.
Chas.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 10:17:32
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
peteymills@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 19, 1:32 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> It makes a difference. The theory offered in good engineering schools
>> is worth a lot and experience reinforces those principals. I have
>> come across many of these instances in my work. For instance,the
>> failures of the Shay steam locomotive was never understood in more
>> than 100 years of service, yet it jumped out at me when reviewing
>> derailment pictures and reading about them, so I wrote about it:
>>
>> http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/grd_loco.html
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> This example doesn't seem to rely too much on theory and could easily
> be diagnosed by someone with good practical knowledge and no formal
> training. Intelligent people can pick up theory just as they can pick
> up practical knowledge. In any case, sometimes I wonder if there
> isn't too much emphasis on theory.
A lot of "theory" involves rather subtle concepts that take a long time
to fully grasp. This isn't to say that theory isn't accessible just from
reading the right books, just that it's not simply "cookbook" (lookup
facts).
It's often difficult to impossible to discuss common phenomena without
an understanding of these principles. A recent example which comes to
mind was a long debate about spoke tension and its measurement via
tensiometer or direct measurement of spoke deflection when weighted at
mid-span. Skeptics wouldn't accept the equivalence of the methods simply
because they couldn't grasp vectors and free body diagrams. Similarly,
calculus isn't obvious or easy to grasp, otherwise the world wouldn't
have had to wait for Newton to come along.
In Jobst's problem, it's obvious that a solution was designed, but an
inadequate one. A successful design would have predicted the actual
forces and accommodated them. It might have been achieved via trial and
error or simple over-engineering, but those options are impractical in
the application. The devil is in the details. The details are only
visible with a rigorous model, which involves techniques far beyond
intuition.
Usually there are so many confounding issues in real world problems that
the genius is in knowing what to discard as irrelevant. It may seem
simple after the fact. A classic example is Feynman's analysis of the
Challenger incident.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 23:29:09
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article
<YcKdnVUmXKBgHW_bnZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote:
> peteymills@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 1:32 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> >> It makes a difference. The theory offered in good engineering schools
> >> is worth a lot and experience reinforces those principals. I have
> >> come across many of these instances in my work. For instance,the
> >> failures of the Shay steam locomotive was never understood in more
> >> than 100 years of service, yet it jumped out at me when reviewing
> >> derailment pictures and reading about them, so I wrote about it:
> >>
> >> http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/grd_loco.html
> >>
> >> Jobst Brandt
> >
> > This example doesn't seem to rely too much on theory and could easily
> > be diagnosed by someone with good practical knowledge and no formal
> > training. Intelligent people can pick up theory just as they can pick
> > up practical knowledge. In any case, sometimes I wonder if there
> > isn't too much emphasis on theory.
>
> A lot of "theory" involves rather subtle concepts that take a long time
> to fully grasp. This isn't to say that theory isn't accessible just from
> reading the right books, just that it's not simply "cookbook" (lookup
> facts).
>
> It's often difficult to impossible to discuss common phenomena without
> an understanding of these principles. A recent example which comes to
> mind was a long debate about spoke tension and its measurement via
> tensiometer or direct measurement of spoke deflection when weighted at
> mid-span. Skeptics wouldn't accept the equivalence of the methods simply
> because they couldn't grasp vectors and free body diagrams. Similarly,
> calculus isn't obvious or easy to grasp, otherwise the world wouldn't
> have had to wait for Newton to come along.
>
> In Jobst's problem, it's obvious that a solution was designed, but an
> inadequate one. A successful design would have predicted the actual
> forces and accommodated them. It might have been achieved via trial and
> error or simple over-engineering, but those options are impractical in
> the application. The devil is in the details. The details are only
> visible with a rigorous model, which involves techniques far beyond
> intuition.
>
> Usually there are so many confounding issues in real world problems that
> the genius is in knowing what to discard as irrelevant. It may seem
> simple after the fact. A classic example is Feynman's analysis of the
> Challenger incident.
This is similar to the failure in the Shay locomotive.
The failure was the failure of interested parties,
their emotional investment clouding their minds.
Feynman talked to the technical people who knew
perfectly well what the problem was and tried to
postpone the launch. A clear mind skilled in railroad
engineering would ask himself what makes a set of
wheels run off a curve and get back the answer:
differential speed of the inside and outside wheels.
Feynman himself was as emotionally invested in his
field as anyone else. He was proficient in proof by
intimidation.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 05:05:04
From:
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sep 19, 8:14 pm, "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:p7CdnXt8Te1PiWzbnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > Ben C wrote:
> > > On 2007-09-18, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> * * Chas wrote:
> > >>> In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
> > >>> frequently advanced degrees in the field.
> > >> I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
> > >> sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an academic
> > >> degree in something.
>
> > > I've met two F1 engineers. Both were very interesting and intelligent.
> > > One had degrees in all the kinds of thing you would expect, the other
> > > had none-- his education consisted of a lifetime of souping up Fords.
>
> > > I asked him about this and he said most teams have a mix of the two
> > > kinds of people.
>
> > This is a false dichotomy. There is nothing mutually exclusive between
> > the 2 categories. Many engineers with formal educations also have a
> > great deal of "hands-on" expertise. I know lots of engineers who have
> > degrees (even advanced ones) and have "spent a lifetime souping up
> > Fords", or the equivalent.
>
> > > However good a university might be most people are only there for a
> few
> > > years during which they are young and quite often drunk. I don't
> > > understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than in
> > > the rest of their lives.
>
> > Besides getting a foundation in basic science, an engineering education,
> > like virtually all tertiary educations, teaches students the skill of
> > independent study -- a prerequisite for lifetime learning outside of
> > institutions. All of my classes were "one-way" affairs, large lecture
> > halls and long reading lists with exams at the end. The specific fields
> > I found employment in after graduation did not even have courses
> > available, being too new -- a typical situation in engineering.
>
> > The problem with "rule of thumb" or "seat of the pants" "engineers" is
> > that these techniques don't scale or generalize. Intuition is fallible,
> > many real-world phenomena are not only non-intuitive, but actually
> > counter-intuitive (e.g. bike wheels standing on spokes) -- the only way
> > to successfully analyze these problems is formally, often with tools
> > (usually) unavailable to those without extended educations. One of the
> > real eye-openers for me was seeing math majors take our hardest EE
> > courses as "easy A's", simply because the math was trivial for them.
>
> I agree....
>
> I've worked as a manufacturing engineer and independent consultant for
> over 30 years. Much of what I've learned I picked up on the job but
> without my educational background it would have been more difficult to
> learn.
>
> I studied engineering and metallurgy but forgot most of the stuff that I
> didn't need to know to do my job - that's what books are for. I already
> had a degree but I needed another year and a half of engineering courses
> to become a degreed engineer. A second degree wouldn't have put any more
> money in my pocket.
>
> For liability reasons I only do concept drawings and let the MEs
> (mechanical engineers or other degreed engineers) crunch the numbers and
> take responsibility for making sure that the products are engineered
> correctly.
>
> Many of my counterparts in Germany worked their way off of the production
> floor to became manufacturing engineers. Two to five years of operating
> machinery and making parts gives them a lot of insight into manufacturing
> processes.
>
> I've known a lot of people in manufacturing in the US and Canada who have
> also come off the shop floor to assume engineering positions.
>
> The technical education system in Germany is superior to that in the US.
> Mathematics taught in their secondary education system are almost the
> equivalent of a US degree.
>
I keep hearing this claim and I wonder how true it is. The courses
here in Bremen are very disorganized--in sharp contrast to the
Canadian schools--and there is too much reliance on oral examinations
where the instructor often passes the students he or she favors--
usually ones with similar background and/or disposition. I have
another Canadian friend here who is teaching electrical engineering to
wirtschaft (business) engineers and he says that it's impossible
because they have no math skills--that they don't know what the sine
function is or how to take a derivative, for instance. Yet he is
nonetheless required to pass the majority of them.
> I still like to know that the roads and buildings I use were designed by
> civil engineers and the cars and planes by MEs.
>
> BTW.... sorry guys but most of the engineering students that I ran across
> were serious, boring nerds and geeks who didn't party much. They were home
> doing differential equations.
>
> Chas.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 10:48:01
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
<peteymills@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190289904.389763.100240@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 19, 8:14 pm, "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
> > "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:p7CdnXt8Te1PiWzbnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Ben C wrote:
> > > > On 2007-09-18, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> * * Chas wrote:
> > > >>> In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees
and
> > > >>> frequently advanced degrees in the field.
> > > >> I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
> > > >> sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an
academic
> > > >> degree in something.
> >
> > > > I've met two F1 engineers. Both were very interesting and
intelligent.
> > > > One had degrees in all the kinds of thing you would expect, the
other
> > > > had none-- his education consisted of a lifetime of souping up
Fords.
> >
> > > > I asked him about this and he said most teams have a mix of the
two
> > > > kinds of people.
> >
> > > This is a false dichotomy. There is nothing mutually exclusive
between
> > > the 2 categories. Many engineers with formal educations also have a
> > > great deal of "hands-on" expertise. I know lots of engineers who
have
> > > degrees (even advanced ones) and have "spent a lifetime souping up
> > > Fords", or the equivalent.
> >
> > > > However good a university might be most people are only there for
a
> > few
> > > > years during which they are young and quite often drunk. I don't
> > > > understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than
in
> > > > the rest of their lives.
> >
> > > Besides getting a foundation in basic science, an engineering
education,
> > > like virtually all tertiary educations, teaches students the skill
of
> > > independent study -- a prerequisite for lifetime learning outside of
> > > institutions. All of my classes were "one-way" affairs, large
lecture
> > > halls and long reading lists with exams at the end. The specific
fields
> > > I found employment in after graduation did not even have courses
> > > available, being too new -- a typical situation in engineering.
> >
> > > The problem with "rule of thumb" or "seat of the pants" "engineers"
is
> > > that these techniques don't scale or generalize. Intuition is
fallible,
> > > many real-world phenomena are not only non-intuitive, but actually
> > > counter-intuitive (e.g. bike wheels standing on spokes) -- the only
way
> > > to successfully analyze these problems is formally, often with tools
> > > (usually) unavailable to those without extended educations. One of
the
> > > real eye-openers for me was seeing math majors take our hardest EE
> > > courses as "easy A's", simply because the math was trivial for them.
> >
> > I agree....
> >
> > I've worked as a manufacturing engineer and independent consultant for
> > over 30 years. Much of what I've learned I picked up on the job but
> > without my educational background it would have been more difficult to
> > learn.
> >
> > I studied engineering and metallurgy but forgot most of the stuff that
I
> > didn't need to know to do my job - that's what books are for. I
already
> > had a degree but I needed another year and a half of engineering
courses
> > to become a degreed engineer. A second degree wouldn't have put any
more
> > money in my pocket.
> >
> > For liability reasons I only do concept drawings and let the MEs
> > (mechanical engineers or other degreed engineers) crunch the numbers
and
> > take responsibility for making sure that the products are engineered
> > correctly.
> >
> > Many of my counterparts in Germany worked their way off of the
production
> > floor to became manufacturing engineers. Two to five years of
operating
> > machinery and making parts gives them a lot of insight into
manufacturing
> > processes.
> >
> > I've known a lot of people in manufacturing in the US and Canada who
have
> > also come off the shop floor to assume engineering positions.
> >
> > The technical education system in Germany is superior to that in the
US.
> > Mathematics taught in their secondary education system are almost the
> > equivalent of a US degree.
> >
> I keep hearing this claim and I wonder how true it is. The courses
> here in Bremen are very disorganized--in sharp contrast to the
> Canadian schools--and there is too much reliance on oral examinations
> where the instructor often passes the students he or she favors--
> usually ones with similar background and/or disposition. I have
> another Canadian friend here who is teaching electrical engineering to
> wirtschaft (business) engineers and he says that it's impossible
> because they have no math skills--that they don't know what the sine
> function is or how to take a derivative, for instance. Yet he is
> nonetheless required to pass the majority of them.
>
> > I still like to know that the roads and buildings I use were designed
by
> > civil engineers and the cars and planes by MEs.
> >
> > BTW.... sorry guys but most of the engineering students that I ran
across
> > were serious, boring nerds and geeks who didn't party much. They were
home
> > doing differential equations.
> >
> > Chas.
Perhaps things have changed in the German education system over the past
20 years.
To put my statements into context, I've worked with companies throughout
the US plus parts of Canada and Mexico to help them improve their
manufacturing processes . I've also been to factories in a number of
European countries. I work mostly with machine shops and metal fabrication
facilities.
I frequently look at parts or drawings, bite my tongue and think to myself
"who the #%^& designed this". For example, several major NorCal
electronics related manufacturers had boiler plate notes on all of their
drawings: "Break all edges, no visible burrs at 20x magnification." and
".005R maximum corner radius unless specified." In most cases these were
unnecessary and ridiculously expensive specifications.
Another example, a lot of these same engineers specified 316L stainless
steel. I used to ask them why 316L? "Is the part going to be welded? Do
you need high corrosion resistance?" "No 316L is free machining because it
contains lead." WRONG! "How about switching to a true free machining
stainless." 316L is about 50% more difficult to work with than say 303SE
stainless steel.
In Germany a lot of engineers have hands-on experience on the shop floor
and tend not to design parts that are difficult to manufacture.
In the mid 1960s a friend was stationed in Germany and married a woman who
grew up in Dresden and had escaped from the GDR. She started working at
age 14 when she finished her basic education.
She tried to get into college here in the US but they didn't want to talk
with her because she didn't have a high school diploma. My friend arranged
for her to take some advanced placement tests that were given to "gifted"
high school students. Based on her scores she was accepted into school and
started off taking 3rd and 4th year math courses.
Chas.
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 07:23:19
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
thanks, we'll consider that.
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 03:07:53
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
sanitation engineers operate waste treatment plants and are lye
sensed.
If yawl go over to State of Euphoria, Department of Licenses, yawl see
whose gotta pass an exam for the public's well being.
like having a grup moderator...
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 21:02:43
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
> But we digress. "
-do not show quoted text -
YOU JAMBO DIGRESS
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 17:11:16
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1190235763.162114.168290@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
>> But we digress. "
> -do not show quoted text -
>
> YOU JAMBO DIGRESS
HEY? WHAT WAS THAT? I COULDN'T READ YOU, TYPE BIGGER NEXT TIME.
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 13:37:00
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
modulus are 3 meter stingrays found in the Sea of Cortez
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 05:06:05
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sep 18, 10:59 pm, "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote in message
>
> news:46f027d7$0$26324$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Chalo" <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1190142696.420865.71390@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > There are other (and sometimes better) ways to be an engineer than by
> > > getting a degree in engineering.
>
> > Not often can anything be better than a formal degree, in a given
> technical
> > field. Degrees don't only directly teach technical knowledge, but the
> > discipline of an academic pursuit enforces necessary systematic thinking
> and
> > scientific impartiality, as well as the requirement of scientific proof.
>
> > One may be able to attain engineering knowledge, but without the
> necessary
> > mindset in how to apply this knowledge, one merely becomes a "cookbook
> > engineer".
>
> > > Qualifications are a reliable
> > > indicator of specialized knowledge, but they are not a substitute for
> > > that knowledge.
>
> > However, academic qualifications can rarely be foregone if one desires
> not
> > just knowledge, but scientific mindset.
>
> > > Chalo
>
> Were talking about engineering not philosophy.
>
> In the US and Canada, most TRUE Metallurgists are also PEs - Professional
> Engineers which is a legal form of licensing. The initials PE behind an
> engineers name means that they can legally PRACTICE engineering. This
> almost always requires a degree in engineering from an accredited school
> of higher education.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Engineerhttp://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensure_for_engineers/
>
> Any shade tree mechanic can call themselves an engineer ergo locomotive
> train engineers, Operating Engineers and so on. That doesn't qualify them
> to engineer bridges, buildings, cars or airplanes.
>
> Chas.
A friend of mine decided to stay at home for a few years to take care
of her young children. During this period of her life she called
herself a home engineer.
Andres
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 21:10:36
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
Jambo wrote:
> Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
> re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
> school".
>
> It's quite obvious from his posts that he's neither. His usage of
> terminologies that aren't used by metallurgists, his juvenile understanding
> of scientific methodologies, and the obviously made up experiences and
> contrived "data" he produces make all this clear.
>
> I'm struggling to find out what the payback is for you for this fraud,
> beamboy. Does it matter to you when you give bad advice to people here,
> most of whom, after all, are honestly seeking advice they're likely to use
> in real life, or is the notion that they may take your bad advice the reward
> for you, regardless that it serves them badly? Obviously you feel that you
> can get away with fraud since you have an anonymous presence in this n.g.,
> but what's the payback for bleating false information? Is acknowledgement
> of others that you're some sort of technical guru the payback itself? Maybe
> trying to be known as some sort of maverick, the "rebel" who rails against
> the system, is your kick, however misguided and wrong you may be? Is this
> what tickles your fancy? Or maybe you're living out in this newsgroup what
> you can't achieve in real life?
>
> Let's hear the real story, beamboy.
>
>
ah, they let the moron out of the padded cell! presumably so they can
hose it out and disinfect.
tell me, have you figured out the difference between weight and density
yet? and what's the definition of "modulus"?
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 14:09:38
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:b-2dnUWI1d6hPG3bnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
>> re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
>> school".
>>
>> It's quite obvious from his posts that he's neither. His usage of
>> terminologies that aren't used by metallurgists, his juvenile
>> understanding of scientific methodologies, and the obviously made up
>> experiences and contrived "data" he produces make all this clear.
>>
>> I'm struggling to find out what the payback is for you for this fraud,
>> beamboy. Does it matter to you when you give bad advice to people here,
>> most of whom, after all, are honestly seeking advice they're likely to
>> use in real life, or is the notion that they may take your bad advice the
>> reward for you, regardless that it serves them badly? Obviously you feel
>> that you can get away with fraud since you have an anonymous presence in
>> this n.g., but what's the payback for bleating false information? Is
>> acknowledgement of others that you're some sort of technical guru the
>> payback itself? Maybe trying to be known as some sort of maverick, the
>> "rebel" who rails against the system, is your kick, however misguided and
>> wrong you may be? Is this what tickles your fancy? Or maybe you're
>> living out in this newsgroup what you can't achieve in real life?
>>
>> Let's hear the real story, beamboy.
>
> ah, they let the moron out of the padded cell! presumably so they can
> hose it out and disinfect.
Oh, it hurts so much...
This doesn't even make sense.
> tell me, have you figured out the difference between weight and density
> yet?
You know, I think I finally have.
- Weight is what you have on your shoulders beamboy, trying to make your
intellect keep pace with your mouth (or fingers, in this case), and failing
drastically every time.
- Density is what you have an excess of in your head, the cause of the
above.
> and what's the definition of "modulus"?
Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, beamboy, no matter how you spin it.
But we digress. I'm really more interested about your "metallurgist"
training, and the "materials skool" you went to more than 30 years ago (you
know, the one with the "sikorski" people telling you all about the mythical
helo composite rotors experience in Vietnam). Where, why, how, don't skimp
on the details now!
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 20:54:51
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:b-2dnUWI1d6hPG3bnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
>>> re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
>>> school".
>>>
>>> It's quite obvious from his posts that he's neither. His usage of
>>> terminologies that aren't used by metallurgists, his juvenile
>>> understanding of scientific methodologies, and the obviously made up
>>> experiences and contrived "data" he produces make all this clear.
>>>
>>> I'm struggling to find out what the payback is for you for this fraud,
>>> beamboy. Does it matter to you when you give bad advice to people here,
>>> most of whom, after all, are honestly seeking advice they're likely to
>>> use in real life, or is the notion that they may take your bad advice the
>>> reward for you, regardless that it serves them badly? Obviously you feel
>>> that you can get away with fraud since you have an anonymous presence in
>>> this n.g., but what's the payback for bleating false information? Is
>>> acknowledgement of others that you're some sort of technical guru the
>>> payback itself? Maybe trying to be known as some sort of maverick, the
>>> "rebel" who rails against the system, is your kick, however misguided and
>>> wrong you may be? Is this what tickles your fancy? Or maybe you're
>>> living out in this newsgroup what you can't achieve in real life?
>>>
>>> Let's hear the real story, beamboy.
>> ah, they let the moron out of the padded cell! presumably so they can
>> hose it out and disinfect.
>
> Oh, it hurts so much...
>
> This doesn't even make sense.
>
>> tell me, have you figured out the difference between weight and density
>> yet?
>
> You know, I think I finally have.
>
> - Weight is what you have on your shoulders beamboy, trying to make your
> intellect keep pace with your mouth (or fingers, in this case), and failing
> drastically every time.
> - Density is what you have an excess of in your head, the cause of the
> above.
>
>> and what's the definition of "modulus"?
>
> Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, beamboy, no matter how you spin it.
/i/ know that, but you didn't when you typed the stupefyingly moronic
words "modulus is strength to weight".
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/637919f8594e0e38
>
> But we digress. I'm really more interested about your "metallurgist"
> training, and the "materials skool" you went to more than 30 years ago (you
> know, the one with the "sikorski" people telling you all about the mythical
> helo composite rotors experience in Vietnam). Where, why, how, don't skimp
> on the details now!
you can lie, bullshit, and criticize the false words you put in peoples
mouths all you want, but you'll never change the fact that you're still
a complete fucking moron.
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 12:37:21
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:6r-dnacwc7CRcmzbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>>
>> Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, beamboy, no matter how you spin it.
>
> /i/ know that,
Just like you knew about helo rotor composites before they existed, right?
> but you didn't when you typed the stupefyingly moronic words "modulus is
> strength to weight".
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/637919f8594e0e38
Ah, let's see, from your favorite source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_modulus
Specific modulus is a materials property consisting of the elastic modulus
per mass density of a material. The specific modulus is often important in
aerospace applications in which maximum strength for minimum weight is
required.The dimensional analysis yields units of distance squared per time
squared. A related property is the specific strength, a more general term
that compares any unit of strength (not just elastic modulus) to its
density.
Let's see that again: "important in aerospace applications in which maximum
strength for minimum weight is required"
Now as for your ignorant bleatings:
- specific modulus = Young's modulus
- for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an elastic
deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%.
- "Materials lecture more than 30 years ago" from "sikorski" showed
helicopter composite rotor combat service results, at a time before
composite rotors entered service
- CF forks talk to people before breaking
- In the aerospace industry, CF composites sing to embedded microphones
before breaking
- metal fatigue is the same as CF damage tolerance
- NDT is the same as NDI
- stress does not figure in spoke fatigue
etc, etc, etc....
> you can lie, bullshit, and criticize the false words you put in peoples
> mouths all you want, but you'll never change the fact that you're still a
> complete fucking moron.
Oh, don't be so hurtful now, beamboy. After all, being called out as the
fraud "metallurgist from metarials skool" that you are shouldn't really
matter to you that much, you're just posting under a character!
>> But we digress. I'm really more interested about your "metallurgist"
>> training, and the "materials skool" you went to more than 30 years ago
>> (you know, the one with the "sikorski" people telling you all about the
>> mythical helo composite rotors experience in Vietnam). Where, why, how,
>> don't skimp on the details now!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 18:27:07
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:6r-dnacwc7CRcmzbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, beamboy, no matter how you spin it.
>> /i/ know that,
>
> Just like you knew about helo rotor composites before they existed, right?
>
>> but you didn't when you typed the stupefyingly moronic words "modulus is
>> strength to weight".
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/637919f8594e0e38
>
> Ah, let's see, from your favorite source
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_modulus
> Specific modulus is a materials property consisting of the elastic modulus
> per mass density of a material. The specific modulus is often important in
> aerospace applications in which maximum strength for minimum weight is
> required.The dimensional analysis yields units of distance squared per time
> squared. A related property is the specific strength, a more general term
> that compares any unit of strength (not just elastic modulus) to its
> density.
i know what specific modulus is moron - i was the one that pointed out
the facts:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/637919f8594e0e38
not that facts seem to worry you though.
>
> Let's see that again: "important in aerospace applications in which maximum
> strength for minimum weight is required"
>
> Now as for your ignorant bleatings:
> - specific modulus = Young's modulus
i never said that you moronic bullshitter. the thread goes like this-
moron: "Modulus is strength to weight, stress strain is COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT!".
jb: "er, actually modulus = stress/strain."
moron: "Er, actually, specific modulus is NOT equal to Young's modulus."
this unbelievable crap shows not only that you don't know what modulus,
or specific modulus is, you don't even know what stiffness or density are!!!
for the record:
modulus = stress/strain.
specific modulus = modulus/density.
how the fuck you arrive at some bullshit confusing the two, even after
all this time and having had the ability to do your own homework, can
only be achieved by a true, brain-dead, unhinged moron.
> - for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an elastic
> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%.
it's just a typo you fucking moron - that's how i managed to input the
correct data and somehow execute the correct formula.
> - "Materials lecture more than 30 years ago" from "sikorski" showed
> helicopter composite rotor combat service results, at a time before
> composite rotors entered service
again, you can't read - i said "a supplier". and that supplier just
happened to be the blade manufacturer. the content and chronology is as
stated. you can lie and bullshit all you want about that, but you're
not going to change the facts.
> - CF forks talk to people before breaking
they make cracking noises - just like wood. that's a good deal more
helpful to someone seeking to avoid failure than metal fatigue. moron.
> - In the aerospace industry, CF composites sing to embedded microphones
> before breaking
they can use embedded sensors. moron.
> - metal fatigue is the same as CF damage tolerance
not my words, moron.
> - NDT is the same as NDI
er, you missed nde. and they are the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondestructive_testing
> - stress does not figure in spoke fatigue
not my words, moron.
> etc, etc, etc....
>
>> you can lie, bullshit, and criticize the false words you put in peoples
>> mouths all you want, but you'll never change the fact that you're still a
>> complete fucking moron.
>
> Oh, don't be so hurtful now, beamboy. After all, being called out as the
> fraud "metallurgist from metarials skool" that you are shouldn't really
> matter to you that much, you're just posting under a character!
i see i've succeeded in teaching you to spell "metallurgy". now all you
need to do is learn what modulus, specific modulus, stress, strain, and
density are. moron.
>
>>> But we digress. I'm really more interested about your "metallurgist"
>>> training, and the "materials skool" you went to more than 30 years ago
>>> (you know, the one with the "sikorski" people telling you all about the
>>> mythical helo composite rotors experience in Vietnam). Where, why, how,
>>> don't skimp on the details now!
>
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 00:31:55
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:Gc6dnUAON8n28mnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> i know what specific modulus is moron - i was the one that pointed out the
> facts:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/637919f8594e0e38
>
> not that facts seem to worry you though.
Uh, hey dickhead, here's the relevant passage:
beamboy ejaculated: 1. the modulus of cf is much greater than that of al
alloys. look it up.
Jambo stated: Modulus is strength to weight, stress strain is COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT!
Is that your pointing out of the "facts"? They're wrong, shamboy. As I
stated:
"Let's see that again: "important in aerospace applications in which maximum
strength for minimum weight is required"
Now as for your ignorant bleatings:
- specific modulus = Young's modulus"
> i never said that you moronic bullshitter. the thread goes like this-
>
> moron: "Modulus is strength to weight, stress strain is COMPLETELY
> DIFFERENT!".
>
> jb: "er, actually modulus = stress/strain."
>
> moron: "Er, actually, specific modulus is NOT equal to Young's modulus."
> this unbelievable crap shows not only that you don't know what modulus, or
> specific modulus is, you don't even know what stiffness or density are!!!
Funny! This is so typical of your senility onset - stating that modulus =
stress/strain, when in fact MODULUS CAN HAVE A HOST OF DEFINITIONS depending
whether it is SPECIFIC or YOUNG's. Now YOU did not know that, DID NOT know
that modulus can be specific or Young's, opting instead to define the
generic "modulus" as stress/strain, unaware that "modulus" by itself needs
more specific definition as above.
As for your "you don't even know what stiffness or density are", wtf has
this to do with the issue of your confusion? What is says is that you throw
out terms and jargon when you run out of argument, dragging whatever you can
think of no matter how unrelated. Lying fraudster.
> for the record:
> modulus = stress/strain.
> specific modulus = modulus/density.
Yeah, yeah, Google told you, didn't it, and it took all this time for you to
find out. Thanks for confirming what I've been telling you all along.
> how the fuck you arrive at some bullshit confusing the two, even after all
> this time and having had the ability to do your own homework, can only be
> achieved by a true, brain-dead, unhinged moron.
Er, try to concentrate now, beamboy... drink some coffee, take your pills -
YOU were the one who got the two confused.
>
>> - for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an elastic
>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%.
>
> it's just a typo you fucking moron - that's how i managed to input the
> correct data and somehow execute the correct formula.
Oh really?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/f6d2b83130e95f94/b3b1aa68677161fe?lnk=gst&q=elastic%2Fplastic+fundamentals&rnum=3#b3b1aa68677161fe
Let's recap: beamboy ejaculated
"for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an elastic
deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%.
how does that compare again?
carbon can vary widely in properties, but 0.5% to 1.5% cover a good
median of elastic strain limits. and hopefully we can see that even
0.5% is more than 10 times better than 0.04%. [use a fiber with 1.5%
and we have something highly impressive.] "
So when you went on to argue that "hopefully we can see that even
0.5% is more than 10 times better than 0.04%. [use a fiber with 1.5%
and we have something highly impressive.] ", based on yout "typo", that's
also a typo?
Nah, the truth is, you can't even get your figures correctly, and you draw
these amazing whacko conclusions from erroneous data.
And "typos" are typing mistakes, NOT calculation mistakes, lying fraudster.
>> - "Materials lecture more than 30 years ago" from "sikorski" showed
>> helicopter composite rotor combat service results, at a time before
>> composite rotors entered service
>
> again, you can't read - i said "a supplier". and that supplier just
> happened to be the blade manufacturer. the content and chronology is as
> stated. you can lie and bullshit all you want about that, but you're not
> going to change the facts.
That's right. The facts are that no military composite helo rotors were in
combat service until after 1978.
Here, let me recount the facts:
"1973 is when Sikorsky S-70's first successful test flight using an all
composite, bearingless tail rotor. The S-70 became the UH-60 Black Hawk,
which did not enter service with the US Army until 1978
(http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/black_hawk/).
In July 1976, Kaman (NOT Sikorsky) designs and begins manufacturing the
K-747 blade, the world's first production all-composite rotor blade for the
Bell AH-1 Cobra helicopter. Although the Cobra served in Vietnam, the
composite rotor did not see any service until after the Vietnam War."
(http://www.kaman.com)
So, we've established conclusively that you're a lying bullshitter
fraudster.
>> - CF forks talk to people before breaking
>
> they make cracking noises - just like wood. that's a good deal more
> helpful to someone seeking to avoid failure than metal fatigue. moron.
Great, so tell Boeing that's all they need to do to monitor composite
components, and amaze their engineers.
Fucktard.
>> - In the aerospace industry, CF composites sing to embedded microphones
>> before breaking
>
> they can use embedded sensors. moron.
Which don't "listen" to sound, but rather detect mechanical movement.
Ignorant lying fucktard.
>
>> - metal fatigue is the same as CF damage tolerance
>
> not my words, moron.
Really?
>> - NDT is the same as NDI
>
> er, you missed nde. and they are the same.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondestructive_testing
Oooh, ooh, beamboy finally looked it up! But wow, testing is the same as
inspection in beamboyworld. How about we consult a REAL technical source,
beamboy?
http://www.asnt.org/ndt/primer1.htm
"What Is Not Nondestructive Testing?
Nondestructive testing asks "Is there something wrong with this material?"
Various performance and proof tests, in contrast, ask "Does this component
work?" This is the reason that it is not considered nondestructive testing
when an inspector checks a circuit by running electric current through it."
Ignorant liar.
>> - stress does not figure in spoke fatigue
>
> not my words, moron.
Let's see:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/cb8a1d3cc50f1896/d8f8cc2790866b36?lnk=gst&q=yet+another+broken+spoke&rnum=2#d8f8cc2790866b36
Remember that? In beamboyworld, spoke fatigue is all about inclusions,
nothing else.
> i see i've succeeded in teaching you to spell "metallurgy". now all you
> need to do is learn what modulus, specific modulus, stress, strain, and
> density are. moron.
Being able to spell metallurgy, can I now hear CF talk to me? Can I also
re-write history and say that composite rotors have been in service in the
Vietnam war, so I can make myself look credible as a "metullergeist" who
attended metarials skool?
>>>> But we digress. I'm really more interested about your "metallurgist"
>>>> training, and the "materials skool" you went to more than 30 years ago
>>>> (you know, the one with the "sikorski" people telling you all about the
>>>> mythical helo composite rotors experience in Vietnam). Where, why,
>>>> how, don't skimp on the details now!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 07:22:15
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:Gc6dnUAON8n28mnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>> i know what specific modulus is moron - i was the one that pointed out the
>> facts:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/637919f8594e0e38
>>
>> not that facts seem to worry you though.
>
> Uh, hey dickhead, here's the relevant passage:
>
> beamboy ejaculated: 1. the modulus of cf is much greater than that of al
> alloys. look it up.
> Jambo stated: Modulus is strength to weight, stress strain is COMPLETELY
> DIFFERENT!
but, fucking moron, you're confusing modulus with specific modulus.
well, if your fucked-up incorrect formula can be called "specific
modulus", which it isn't.
>
>
> Is that your pointing out of the "facts"? They're wrong, shamboy. As I
> stated:
>
> "Let's see that again: "important in aerospace applications in which maximum
> strength for minimum weight is required"
strength is not modulus, fucking moron.
>
> Now as for your ignorant bleatings:
> - specific modulus = Young's modulus"
i never said that you ignorant bullshitter.
>
>> i never said that you moronic bullshitter. the thread goes like this-
>>
>> moron: "Modulus is strength to weight, stress strain is COMPLETELY
>> DIFFERENT!".
>>
>> jb: "er, actually modulus = stress/strain."
>>
>> moron: "Er, actually, specific modulus is NOT equal to Young's modulus."
>
>> this unbelievable crap shows not only that you don't know what modulus, or
>> specific modulus is, you don't even know what stiffness or density are!!!
>
>
> Funny! This is so typical of your senility onset - stating that modulus =
> stress/strain, when in fact MODULUS CAN HAVE A HOST OF DEFINITIONS depending
> whether it is SPECIFIC or YOUNG's.
ok, you're a fucking moron. young's modulus is /not/ specific modulus.
specific modulus /is/ young's modulus divided by density. the latter
is a derivative of the other.
you have the temerity to blow up this vast bullshit argument and you
don't even understand something as basic as that. you're a fucking
moron. and fucking insane.
> Now YOU did not know that, DID NOT know
> that modulus can be specific or Young's, opting instead to define the
> generic "modulus" as stress/strain, unaware that "modulus" by itself needs
> more specific definition as above.
you're a fucking moron. and insane.
>
> As for your "you don't even know what stiffness or density are", wtf has
> this to do with the issue of your confusion? What is says is that you throw
> out terms and jargon when you run out of argument, dragging whatever you can
> think of no matter how unrelated. Lying fraudster.
hey, fucking moron, modulus = stress/strain, specific modulus =
modulus/density. you tried to define modulus as "strength to weight".
strength is not stiffness. weight is not density.
>
>> for the record:
>> modulus = stress/strain.
>> specific modulus = modulus/density.
>
> Yeah, yeah, Google told you, didn't it, and it took all this time for you to
> find out. Thanks for confirming what I've been telling you all along.
er, google says you wrote "modulus is strength to weight". not only
were you moronic enough to write that in your inimitable uncomprehending
insane stupor, you couldn't even be bothered to look this shit up
yourself!!! what a fucking moron.
>
>> how the fuck you arrive at some bullshit confusing the two, even after all
>> this time and having had the ability to do your own homework, can only be
>> achieved by a true, brain-dead, unhinged moron.
>
>
> Er, try to concentrate now, beamboy... drink some coffee, take your pills -
> YOU were the one who got the two confused.
>>> - for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an elastic
>>> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%.
>> it's just a typo you fucking moron - that's how i managed to input the
>> correct data and somehow execute the correct formula.
>
> Oh really?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/f6d2b83130e95f94/b3b1aa68677161fe?lnk=gst&q=elastic%2Fplastic+fundamentals&rnum=3#b3b1aa68677161fe
>
> Let's recap: beamboy ejaculated
>
> "for a 6061 with E = 69GPa, and 275MPa yield, that gives an elastic
> deformation limit of 0.275/69 x 100% = 0.04%.
> how does that compare again?
> carbon can vary widely in properties, but 0.5% to 1.5% cover a good
> median of elastic strain limits. and hopefully we can see that even
> 0.5% is more than 10 times better than 0.04%. [use a fiber with 1.5%
> and we have something highly impressive.] "
>
>
> So when you went on to argue that "hopefully we can see that even
> 0.5% is more than 10 times better than 0.04%. [use a fiber with 1.5%
> and we have something highly impressive.] ", based on yout "typo", that's
> also a typo?
>
> Nah, the truth is, you can't even get your figures correctly, and you draw
> these amazing whacko conclusions from erroneous data.
>
> And "typos" are typing mistakes, NOT calculation mistakes, lying fraudster.
there's no erroneous data you fucking moron. you press the buttons on
your calculator, then miss a zero. fucking dipshit moron.
>
>>> - "Materials lecture more than 30 years ago" from "sikorski" showed
>>> helicopter composite rotor combat service results, at a time before
>>> composite rotors entered service
>> again, you can't read - i said "a supplier". and that supplier just
>> happened to be the blade manufacturer. the content and chronology is as
>> stated. you can lie and bullshit all you want about that, but you're not
>> going to change the facts.
>
> That's right. The facts are that no military composite helo rotors were in
> combat service until after 1978.
>
> Here, let me recount the facts:
> "1973 is when Sikorsky S-70's first successful test flight using an all
> composite, bearingless tail rotor. The S-70 became the UH-60 Black Hawk,
> which did not enter service with the US Army until 1978
> (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/black_hawk/).
>
> In July 1976, Kaman (NOT Sikorsky) designs and begins manufacturing the
> K-747 blade, the world's first production all-composite rotor blade for the
> Bell AH-1 Cobra helicopter. Although the Cobra served in Vietnam, the
> composite rotor did not see any service until after the Vietnam War."
> (http://www.kaman.com)
>
> So, we've established conclusively that you're a lying bullshitter
> fraudster.
have you ever heard of the word "classified" used on mil specs? public
info and mil usage are not the same. you can bullshit about the
timelines all you want, but the facts are as i stated. fucking moron.
>
>>> - CF forks talk to people before breaking
>> they make cracking noises - just like wood. that's a good deal more
>> helpful to someone seeking to avoid failure than metal fatigue. moron.
>
> Great, so tell Boeing that's all they need to do to monitor composite
> components, and amaze their engineers.
but they already do!!! fucking moron.
>
> Fucktard.
>
>>> - In the aerospace industry, CF composites sing to embedded microphones
>>> before breaking
>> they can use embedded sensors. moron.
>
> Which don't "listen" to sound, but rather detect mechanical movement.
> Ignorant lying fucktard.
you can do /both/!!! fucking moron.
>
>>> - metal fatigue is the same as CF damage tolerance
>> not my words, moron.
>
> Really?
yeah, really - those are your words, not mine. fucking moron.
>
>>> - NDT is the same as NDI
>> er, you missed nde. and they are the same.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondestructive_testing
>
> Oooh, ooh, beamboy finally looked it up! But wow, testing is the same as
> inspection in beamboyworld. How about we consult a REAL technical source,
> beamboy?
> http://www.asnt.org/ndt/primer1.htm
>
> "What Is Not Nondestructive Testing?
> Nondestructive testing asks "Is there something wrong with this material?"
> Various performance and proof tests, in contrast, ask "Does this component
> work?" This is the reason that it is not considered nondestructive testing
> when an inspector checks a circuit by running electric current through it."
>
> Ignorant liar.
so fucking what you ignorant dipshit moron??? you fine a [morons
version] of ndt, but that doesn't preclude calling it the other names!!!
geeze - what a fucking moron!!!
>
>>> - stress does not figure in spoke fatigue
>> not my words, moron.
>
> Let's see:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/cb8a1d3cc50f1896/d8f8cc2790866b36?lnk=gst&q=yet+another+broken+spoke&rnum=2#d8f8cc2790866b36
>
> Remember that? In beamboyworld, spoke fatigue is all about inclusions,
> nothing else.
eh? you can't read!!! you're a fucking moron!!!
>
>> i see i've succeeded in teaching you to spell "metallurgy". now all you
>> need to do is learn what modulus, specific modulus, stress, strain, and
>> density are. moron.
>
> Being able to spell metallurgy, can I now hear CF talk to me? Can I also
> re-write history and say that composite rotors have been in service in the
> Vietnam war, so I can make myself look credible as a "metullergeist" who
> attended metarials skool?
you're a fucking moron.
>
>>>>> But we digress. I'm really more interested about your "metallurgist"
>>>>> training, and the "materials skool" you went to more than 30 years ago
>>>>> (you know, the one with the "sikorski" people telling you all about the
>>>>> mythical helo composite rotors experience in Vietnam). Where, why,
>>>>> how, don't skimp on the details now!
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 12:00:12
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims - this is the best yet! CLASSIFIED
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:3OudncFrx8qKuGjbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
> but, fucking moron, you're confusing modulus with specific modulus.
No, you're the one doing that, remember? Concentrate beamboy, you're
playing the role of jim beam in rbt...
> well, if your fucked-up incorrect formula can be called "specific
> modulus", which it isn't.
Er, I never posted a formula, beamboy.
> strength is not modulus, fucking moron.
And specific modulus >< Young's modulus, beamboy.
> i never said that you ignorant bullshitter.
No? That's right, you just assumed it was.
> ok, you're a fucking moron. young's modulus is /not/ specific modulus.
Yay! We finally get somewhere!
> specific modulus /is/ young's modulus divided by density. the latter is
> a derivative of the other.
>
> you have the temerity to blow up this vast bullshit argument and you don't
> even understand something as basic as that. you're a fucking moron. and
> fucking insane.
Oh, but it was you who confused the two, beamboy, and it wasn't until you
Googled them a couple of days ago that you now see the light!
> you're a fucking moron. and insane.
Got to do something about expanding your profanity list, beamboy... I must
admit I can get bored, too....
> hey, fucking moron, modulus = stress/strain, specific modulus =
> modulus/density.
Now that you Googled, it, I accept your correction of your mistake.
> you tried to define modulus as "strength to weight".
Eh, no. I said specific modulus is about strength to weight. See the
difference there, beamboy? Subtle, isn't it?
> strength is not stiffness. weight is not density.
Thank heavens for Wikipedia, eh beamboy?
> er, google says you wrote "modulus is strength to weight". not only were
> you moronic enough to write that in your inimitable uncomprehending insane
> stupor, you couldn't even be bothered to look this shit up yourself!!!
> what a fucking moron.
Well the point was to get you to do it, beamboy, and guess what? You
finally learned that specific modulus >< Young's modulus.
Small steps, small steps....
> there's no erroneous data you fucking moron. you press the buttons on
> your calculator, then miss a zero. fucking dipshit moron.
So you miss a zero, that's a mistake, right beamboy? NOT a typo. AND when
you then crapped on about someone not knowing their stuff, based on your
MISTAKEN calculations, that's ERRONEOUS DATA, and ERRONEOUS ARGUMENT, yeah?
Go Google that, beamboy.
> have you ever heard of the word "classified" used on mil specs? public
> info and mil usage are not the same. you can bullshit about the timelines
> all you want, but the facts are as i stated. fucking moron.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! I KNEW YOU WOULD DO THIS!!!!!! I shoulda bet with people!
Now you're saying you were privvy to CLASSIFIED DATA! HAHAHAHAHA! This
makes your myth invulnerable to scrutiny! BEAUTIFULLY DONE, BEAMBOY! Black
ops, right beamboy? So you worked for the CIA too?
HAHAHAHAHA! THE EPITOMY OF DESPERATION!!!!
CLASSIFIED DATA INDEED!
I'll give you a clue though: you can't have data about a material before the
material even existed, classified or not. Composite helo rotors WERE NEVER
USED IN THE VIETNAM WAR, because THESE DID NOT EXIST THEN.
What a classic desperate act of a cover-up!
>
>>
>>>> - CF forks talk to people before breaking
>>> they make cracking noises - just like wood. that's a good deal more
>>> helpful to someone seeking to avoid failure than metal fatigue. moron.
>>
>> Great, so tell Boeing that's all they need to do to monitor composite
>> components, and amaze their engineers.
>>
> but they already do!!! fucking moron.
Really? They "listen" to cracking composites?
Let's see - tapping for damage IS NOT listening to cracks as they develop
- using ultrasound emitters to detect damage IS NOT listening to cracks as
they develop
- using embedded acoustic emitters to detect mechanical movement IS NOT
listening to cracks as they develop
Ignorant tard.
>>> they can use embedded sensors. moron.
>>
>> Which don't "listen" to sound, but rather detect mechanical movement.
>> Ignorant lying fucktard.
>
> you can do /both/!!! fucking moron.
They don't. You need to Google this some more, beamboy.
>>>> - NDT is the same as NDI
>>> er, you missed nde. and they are the same.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondestructive_testing
>>
>> Oooh, ooh, beamboy finally looked it up! But wow, testing is the same as
>> inspection in beamboyworld. How about we consult a REAL technical
>> source, beamboy?
>> http://www.asnt.org/ndt/primer1.htm
>>
>> "What Is Not Nondestructive Testing?
>> Nondestructive testing asks "Is there something wrong with this
>> material?" Various performance and proof tests, in contrast, ask "Does
>> this component work?" This is the reason that it is not considered
>> nondestructive testing when an inspector checks a circuit by running
>> electric current through it."
>>
>> Ignorant liar.
>
> so fucking what you ignorant dipshit moron??? you fine a [morons version]
> of ndt, but that doesn't preclude calling it the other names!!! geeze -
> what a fucking moron!!!
I didn't "fine" it, I found it.
And let's see, the American Society of Nondestructive Testing is a moron
organisation? Desperation again, beamboy.
I'd say the ASNT is just a bit more credible than slashdot, but your
"mettaleuregist" background should have made you aware of this, beamboy.
What does it confirm about your qualifications? Clue - it starts with an
"f", and ends in "ake".
>> Let's see:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/cb8a1d3cc50f1896/d8f8cc2790866b36?lnk=gst&q=yet+another+broken+spoke&rnum=2#d8f8cc2790866b36
>>
>> Remember that? In beamboyworld, spoke fatigue is all about inclusions,
>> nothing else.
>
> eh? you can't read!!! you're a fucking moron!!!
That's not really true, beamboy. I'm responding to your garbage, after all.
>> Being able to spell metallurgy, can I now hear CF talk to me? Can I also
>> re-write history and say that composite rotors have been in service in
>> the Vietnam war, so I can make myself look credible as a "metullergeist"
>> who attended metarials skool?
>
> you're a fucking moron.
Nah, I'm really a nice guy. I just want to read more about your
qualifications. Why are you so evasive about it?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 09:37:44
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims - this is the best yet! CLASSIFIED
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:3OudncFrx8qKuGjbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>> but, fucking moron, you're confusing modulus with specific modulus.
>
> No, you're the one doing that, remember? Concentrate beamboy, you're
> playing the role of jim beam in rbt...
>
>> well, if your fucked-up incorrect formula can be called "specific
>> modulus", which it isn't.
>
> Er, I never posted a formula, beamboy.
er, yes you did. you posted "Modulus is strength to weight"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/637919f8594e0e38
>
>> strength is not modulus, fucking moron.
>
> And specific modulus >< Young's modulus, beamboy.
er, /i/ am the one telling /you/ that, moron.
>
>> i never said that you ignorant bullshitter.
>
> No? That's right, you just assumed it was.
>
>
>> ok, you're a fucking moron. young's modulus is /not/ specific modulus.
>
> Yay! We finally get somewhere!
but i've been telling /you/ that all along, you fucking moron!!! you're
the dumb-ass moron that hasn't been getting it!!!
>
>> specific modulus /is/ young's modulus divided by density. the latter is
>> a derivative of the other.
>>
>> you have the temerity to blow up this vast bullshit argument and you don't
>> even understand something as basic as that. you're a fucking moron. and
>> fucking insane.
>
> Oh, but it was you who confused the two, beamboy, and it wasn't until you
> Googled them a couple of days ago that you now see the light!
>
>> you're a fucking moron. and insane.
>
> Got to do something about expanding your profanity list, beamboy... I must
> admit I can get bored, too....
what? don't like factual accuracy? moron.
>
>> hey, fucking moron, modulus = stress/strain, specific modulus =
>> modulus/density.
>
> Now that you Googled, it, I accept your correction of your mistake.
/my/ mistake???? you're a complete fucking moron!!!!
>
>> you tried to define modulus as "strength to weight".
>
> Eh, no. I said specific modulus is about strength to weight. See the
> difference there, beamboy? Subtle, isn't it?
no you didn't.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/637919f8594e0e38
and *specific* modulus = modulus/density. from your mis-statement,
strength is not modulus and weight is not density. but you're fucking
moron.
>
>> strength is not stiffness. weight is not density.
>
> Thank heavens for Wikipedia, eh beamboy?
so why don't you use it? fucking moron.
>
>
>> er, google says you wrote "modulus is strength to weight". not only were
>> you moronic enough to write that in your inimitable uncomprehending insane
>> stupor, you couldn't even be bothered to look this shit up yourself!!!
>> what a fucking moron.
>
> Well the point was to get you to do it, beamboy, and guess what? You
> finally learned that specific modulus >< Young's modulus.
you claim credit for something /i/ told /you/? you're a fucking moron!!!
>
> Small steps, small steps....
>
>> there's no erroneous data you fucking moron. you press the buttons on
>> your calculator, then miss a zero. fucking dipshit moron.
>
> So you miss a zero, that's a mistake, right beamboy? NOT a typo. AND when
> you then crapped on about someone not knowing their stuff, based on your
> MISTAKEN calculations, that's ERRONEOUS DATA, and ERRONEOUS ARGUMENT, yeah?
> Go Google that, beamboy.
yeah, it's a typo. just like "mettalurgy". fucking moron.
>
>> have you ever heard of the word "classified" used on mil specs? public
>> info and mil usage are not the same. you can bullshit about the timelines
>> all you want, but the facts are as i stated. fucking moron.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHA! I KNEW YOU WOULD DO THIS!!!!!! I shoulda bet with people!
> Now you're saying you were privvy to CLASSIFIED DATA! HAHAHAHAHA! This
> makes your myth invulnerable to scrutiny! BEAUTIFULLY DONE, BEAMBOY! Black
> ops, right beamboy? So you worked for the CIA too?
>
> HAHAHAHAHA! THE EPITOMY OF DESPERATION!!!!
>
> CLASSIFIED DATA INDEED!
>
> I'll give you a clue though: you can't have data about a material before the
> material even existed, classified or not. Composite helo rotors WERE NEVER
> USED IN THE VIETNAM WAR, because THESE DID NOT EXIST THEN.
>
> What a classic desperate act of a cover-up!
fucking moron.
http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html
>
>>>>> - CF forks talk to people before breaking
>>>> they make cracking noises - just like wood. that's a good deal more
>>>> helpful to someone seeking to avoid failure than metal fatigue. moron.
>>> Great, so tell Boeing that's all they need to do to monitor composite
>>> components, and amaze their engineers.
>>>
>> but they already do!!! fucking moron.
>
> Really? They "listen" to cracking composites?
>
> Let's see - tapping for damage IS NOT listening to cracks as they develop
> - using ultrasound emitters to detect damage IS NOT listening to cracks as
> they develop
> - using embedded acoustic emitters to detect mechanical movement IS NOT
> listening to cracks as they develop
>
> Ignorant tard.
er, have you played this video yet?
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/Videos/bruchversuch-i.wmv
you hear all that noise going on as the wing bends? /that/ is easily
detected and easily used by a damage monitoring system. moron.
>
>>>> they can use embedded sensors. moron.
>>> Which don't "listen" to sound, but rather detect mechanical movement.
>>> Ignorant lying fucktard.
>> you can do /both/!!! fucking moron.
>
> They don't. You need to Google this some more, beamboy.
er, they do. moron. you need to do more homework.
>
>>>>> - NDT is the same as NDI
>>>> er, you missed nde. and they are the same.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondestructive_testing
>>> Oooh, ooh, beamboy finally looked it up! But wow, testing is the same as
>>> inspection in beamboyworld. How about we consult a REAL technical
>>> source, beamboy?
>>> http://www.asnt.org/ndt/primer1.htm
>>>
>>> "What Is Not Nondestructive Testing?
>>> Nondestructive testing asks "Is there something wrong with this
>>> material?" Various performance and proof tests, in contrast, ask "Does
>>> this component work?" This is the reason that it is not considered
>>> nondestructive testing when an inspector checks a circuit by running
>>> electric current through it."
>>>
>>> Ignorant liar.
>> so fucking what you ignorant dipshit moron??? you fine a [morons version]
>> of ndt, but that doesn't preclude calling it the other names!!! geeze -
>> what a fucking moron!!!
>
> I didn't "fine" it, I found it.
> And let's see, the American Society of Nondestructive Testing is a moron
> organisation? Desperation again, beamboy.
ndt = ndi = nde.
fucking moron.
>
> I'd say the ASNT is just a bit more credible than slashdot, but your
> "mettaleuregist" background should have made you aware of this, beamboy.
> What does it confirm about your qualifications? Clue - it starts with an
> "f", and ends in "ake".
but moron is spelled "moron". moron.
>
>>> Let's see:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/cb8a1d3cc50f1896/d8f8cc2790866b36?lnk=gst&q=yet+another+broken+spoke&rnum=2#d8f8cc2790866b36
>>>
>>> Remember that? In beamboyworld, spoke fatigue is all about inclusions,
>>> nothing else.
>> eh? you can't read!!! you're a fucking moron!!!
>
> That's not really true, beamboy. I'm responding to your garbage, after all.
"respond" != comprehend!!!
you're a total and complete moron.
>
>>> Being able to spell metallurgy, can I now hear CF talk to me? Can I also
>>> re-write history and say that composite rotors have been in service in
>>> the Vietnam war, so I can make myself look credible as a "metullergeist"
>>> who attended metarials skool?
>> you're a fucking moron.
>
> Nah, I'm really a nice guy. I just want to read more about your
> qualifications. Why are you so evasive about it?
nah, you're a total and complete moron. really.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 15:53:14
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims - this is the best yet! CLASSIFIED
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:pcednUQELZbEC2vbnZ2dnUVZ_tyknZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> Er, I never posted a formula, beamboy.
>
> er, yes you did. you posted "Modulus is strength to weight"
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/637919f8594e0e38
>
That's a "formula to you"? Did your "metarials skool" teach you that?
>>> strength is not modulus, fucking moron.
>>
>> And specific modulus >< Young's modulus, beamboy.
>
> er, /i/ am the one telling /you/ that, moron.
No, it's the other way around, beamboy. Google it!
>>> ok, you're a fucking moron. young's modulus is /not/ specific modulus.
>>
>> Yay! We finally get somewhere!
>
> but i've been telling /you/ that all along, you fucking moron!!! you're
> the dumb-ass moron that hasn't been getting it!!!
>
No, you're getting confused again, beamboy. Maybe too much hallucinogenic
drugs in the 60s, when you dreamed up the CIA black ops composite helo rotor
"lecture"....
>>> you're a fucking moron. and insane.
>>
>> Got to do something about expanding your profanity list, beamboy... I
>> must admit I can get bored, too....
>
> what? don't like factual accuracy? moron.
No, I get bored with your repetitive, very narrow list of profanities....
>> Now that you Googled, it, I accept your correction of your mistake.
>
> /my/ mistake???? you're a complete fucking moron!!!!
Yes, your mistake.
>> Eh, no. I said specific modulus is about strength to weight. See the
>> difference there, beamboy? Subtle, isn't it?
>
> no you didn't.
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/637919f8594e0e38
>
> and *specific* modulus = modulus/density. from your mis-statement,
> strength is not modulus and weight is not density. but you're fucking
> moron.
Am I fucking A moron, or am I A moron? Make up your mind, beamboy!
>>
>> Thank heavens for Wikipedia, eh beamboy?
>
> so why don't you use it? fucking moron.
Er, because you're the one who needs to?
>>> er, google says you wrote "modulus is strength to weight". not only
>>> were you moronic enough to write that in your inimitable uncomprehending
>>> insane stupor, you couldn't even be bothered to look this shit up
>>> yourself!!! what a fucking moron.
>>
>> Well the point was to get you to do it, beamboy, and guess what? You
>> finally learned that specific modulus >< Young's modulus.
>
> you claim credit for something /i/ told /you/? you're a fucking moron!!!
No, you didn't tell me that, beamboy. What you told me was
modulus=stress/strain.
You didn't know that specific modulus >< Young's modulus, until you Googled
it a few days ago.
>>> there's no erroneous data you fucking moron. you press the buttons on
>>> your calculator, then miss a zero. fucking dipshit moron.
>>
>> So you miss a zero, that's a mistake, right beamboy? NOT a typo. AND
>> when you then crapped on about someone not knowing their stuff, based on
>> your MISTAKEN calculations, that's ERRONEOUS DATA, and ERRONEOUS
>> ARGUMENT, yeah? Go Google that, beamboy.
>
> yeah, it's a typo. just like "mettalurgy". fucking moron.
And "sikorski"? And "fine"?
>>> have you ever heard of the word "classified" used on mil specs? public
>>> info and mil usage are not the same. you can bullshit about the
>>> timelines all you want, but the facts are as i stated. fucking moron.
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHA! I KNEW YOU WOULD DO THIS!!!!!! I shoulda bet with people!
>> Now you're saying you were privvy to CLASSIFIED DATA! HAHAHAHAHA! This
>> makes your myth invulnerable to scrutiny! BEAUTIFULLY DONE, BEAMBOY!
>> Black ops, right beamboy? So you worked for the CIA too?
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHA! THE EPITOMY OF DESPERATION!!!!
>>
>> CLASSIFIED DATA INDEED!
>>
>> I'll give you a clue though: you can't have data about a material before
>> the material even existed, classified or not. Composite helo rotors WERE
>> NEVER USED IN THE VIETNAM WAR, because THESE DID NOT EXIST THEN.
>>
>> What a classic desperate act of a cover-up!
>
> fucking moron.
>
> http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html
Oh, so this company has told you CLASSIFIED info in the 60s?
This twig isn't providing you with any cover at all, jim, "drowning, not
waving" beamboy
>>>>>> - CF forks talk to people before breaking
>>>>> they make cracking noises - just like wood. that's a good deal more
>>>>> helpful to someone seeking to avoid failure than metal fatigue.
>>>>> moron.
>>>> Great, so tell Boeing that's all they need to do to monitor composite
>>>> components, and amaze their engineers.
>>>>
>>> but they already do!!! fucking moron.
>>
>> Really? They "listen" to cracking composites?
>>
>> Let's see - tapping for damage IS NOT listening to cracks as they develop
>> - using ultrasound emitters to detect damage IS NOT listening to cracks
>> as they develop
>> - using embedded acoustic emitters to detect mechanical movement IS NOT
>> listening to cracks as they develop
>>
>> Ignorant tard.
>
> er, have you played this video yet?
>
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.com/Videos/bruchversuch-i.wmv
>
> you hear all that noise going on as the wing bends? /that/ is easily
> detected and easily used by a damage monitoring system. moron.
Yeah? So were they using it to detect damage, beamboy? Were they?
Here's a hint : NO!
HAHAHA!
>>>>> they can use embedded sensors. moron.
>>>> Which don't "listen" to sound, but rather detect mechanical movement.
>>>> Ignorant lying fucktard.
>>> you can do /both/!!! fucking moron.
>>
>> They don't. You need to Google this some more, beamboy.
>
> er, they do. moron. you need to do more homework.
No they don't beamboy. Just provide me with 1 credible reference for an
audible sound-based crack detecting system for composites (and no,
ultrasound isn't one of them).
>> And let's see, the American Society of Nondestructive Testing is a moron
>> organisation? Desperation again, beamboy.
>
> ndt = ndi = nde.
>
> fucking moron.
Uh, no again, beamboy.
ND Testing >< ND Inspection.
Have a look at accredited technical and scientific organisations like the
ASNT, and lay off the slashdot pop science crowd, okay?
>> I'd say the ASNT is just a bit more credible than slashdot, but your
>> "mettaleuregist" background should have made you aware of this, beamboy.
>> What does it confirm about your qualifications? Clue - it starts with an
>> "f", and ends in "ake".
>
> but moron is spelled "moron". moron.
So hurtful....
> "respond" != comprehend!!!
>
> you're a total and complete moron.
So now you're saying I can read? Thanks, beamboy.
>> Nah, I'm really a nice guy. I just want to read more about your
>> qualifications. Why are you so evasive about it?
>
> nah, you're a total and complete moron. really.
Nah, I'm really a nice guy. I just want to read more about your
qualifications. Why are you so evasive about it?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 18:31:03
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims - this is the best yet! CLASSIFIED
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 09:37:44 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>nah, you're a total and complete moron. really.
Indeed. I finally plonked the whiney bleating SOB and my newsreader
deleted 201 messages!
Talk about not having a life...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 15:53:38
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims - this is the best yet! CLASSIFIED
|
"Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote in message
news:h5qdf3hos0gs5kpj7j5m6eoevf5ja9n4de@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 09:37:44 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>nah, you're a total and complete moron. really.
>
> Indeed. I finally plonked the whiney bleating SOB and my newsreader
> deleted 201 messages!
>
> Talk about not having a life...
Dougy, quiet. The adults are talking.
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 02:28:33
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
>
> Mwahahahaa! You'll be the first against the wall when I rule the world!
boo!
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 16:23:27
From:
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sep 18, 6:51 pm, "Jambo" <-...@-.- > wrote:
> "Ben C" <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote in message
>
> > However good a university might be most people are only there for a few
> > years during which they are young and quite often drunk.
>
> An unfortunate Hollywood stereotype that isn't really credible. There may
> be those who fit that stereotype, but much more who don't.
And most of those that fit that stereotype are not enrolled in
engineering courses, I'll bet.
BTW, I'm not sure why Ben C thinks being "young" is a handicap to
education. Many amateur musicians envy the kids who began learning
when very young. Their brains and fingers get wired together very
early and very well. They often develop musical skills that are
impossible for late beginners to develop.
I think the same thing happens with technical fields, even though
"wiring" doesn't need to extend to the fingers. Young students (good
ones, anyway) learn good modes of thought. They begin to notice
everyday applications of technical principles, or of math concepts.
They get better at analyzing and understanding these things. If
they've got the talent for it, I think they'll generally stay ahead of
a late starter.
>
> > I don't
> > understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than in
> > the rest of their lives.
>
> Neither does anyone else - a tertiary education gives you the basic tools
> for advancing your technical knowledge and expertise in your particular
> field. It's not meant to be the be-all of education and learning.
FWIW, I was amazed at how much I did learn in that short time. My
education absolutely transformed my understanding of the world.
Obviously, it didn't teach me everything I needed to know. Nothing
will ever do that. But it gave me tools with which to learn, and
enabled me to learn what I needed much faster than I would have.
I've come across several people who believed an engineering education
had no great value. Without exception, those were people that did not
(and probably could not) get one.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 23:07:33
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sep 18, 6:51 pm, "Jambo" <-...@-.- > wrote:
> "Ben C" <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote in message
>
> news:slrnff0jr3.3gu.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
>
> > I've met two F1 engineers. Both were very interesting and intelligent.
> > One had degrees in all the kinds of thing you would expect, the other
> > had none-- his education consisted of a lifetime of souping up Fords.
>
> "Engineer" has a loose definition in many industries. Train drivers are
> still called engineers in many parts of the world, although they have no
> training in what can be considered "conventional" engineering domains.
>
> Many non-tertiary qualified technicians get to be called engineers often
> only as a recognition of their seniority in the particular trade they're
> qualified in.
>
> > However good a university might be most people are only there for a few
> > years during which they are young and quite often drunk.
>
> An unfortunate Hollywood stereotype that isn't really credible. There may
> be those who fit that stereotype, but much more who don't.
>
> > I don't
> > understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than in
> > the rest of their lives.
>
> Neither does anyone else - a tertiary education gives you the basic tools
> for advancing your technical knowledge and expertise in your particular
> field. It's not meant to be the be-all of education and learning.
OK BUT WHY HEAP A MOUNTAIN OF ABUSE ON THESE GUY WHO JUST WANTS TO
START AN ARGUEMENT?
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 13:46:49
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1190156853.517858.182760@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> OK BUT WHY HEAP A MOUNTAIN OF ABUSE ON THESE GUY WHO JUST WANTS TO
> START AN ARGUEMENT?
The answer is in your question!
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 21:46:40
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
Jambo wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
>
> > There are other (and sometimes better) ways to be an engineer than by
> > getting a degree in engineering.
>
> Not often can anything be better than a formal degree, in a given technical
> field. Degrees don't only directly teach technical knowledge, but the
> discipline of an academic pursuit enforces necessary systematic thinking and
> scientific impartiality, as well as the requirement of scientific proof.
>
> One may be able to attain engineering knowledge, but without the necessary
> mindset in how to apply this knowledge, one merely becomes a "cookbook
> engineer".
>
> > Qualifications are a reliable
> > indicator of specialized knowledge, but they are not a substitute for
> > that knowledge.
>
> However, academic qualifications can rarely be foregone if one desires not
> just knowledge, but scientific mindset.
Postgraduate schools are not the sole and exclusive dispenser of the
scientific process, either. There's nothing taught in degree programs
that someone outside such degree programs didn't have to discover
first. Lesser minds than the geniuses who broke the trails can still
follow them, outside of academia.
This doesn't really have anything to do with jb. He's a good example
of how self-conferred expertise can have its pitfalls.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 18:32:21
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190152000.300269.264160@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> Postgraduate schools are not the sole and exclusive dispenser of the
> scientific process, either. There's nothing taught in degree programs
> that someone outside such degree programs didn't have to discover
> first.
Very few instances of that happening, simply because it's much more of an
upmountain battle. There are the occassional diamonds in the rough, but
most modern discoveries were done by tertiary qualified people. Not to say,
of course, that it's the rule.
> Lesser minds than the geniuses who broke the trails can still
> follow them, outside of academia.
Of course. However, cookbook science is often as incorrect as it is
otherwise.
> This doesn't really have anything to do with jb. He's a good example
> of how self-conferred expertise can have its pitfalls.
True, except that his "expertise" needs to be more loosely defined.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 22:24:40
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote in message
news:46f051c4$0$24286$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1190152000.300269.264160@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Postgraduate schools are not the sole and exclusive dispenser of the
> > scientific process, either. There's nothing taught in degree programs
> > that someone outside such degree programs didn't have to discover
> > first.
>
> Very few instances of that happening, simply because it's much more of
an
> upmountain battle. There are the occassional diamonds in the rough, but
> most modern discoveries were done by tertiary qualified people. Not to
say,
> of course, that it's the rule.
>
> > Lesser minds than the geniuses who broke the trails can still
> > follow them, outside of academia.
>
> Of course. However, cookbook science is often as incorrect as it is
> otherwise.
>
> > This doesn't really have anything to do with jb. He's a good example
> > of how self-conferred expertise can have its pitfalls.
>
> True, except that his "expertise" needs to be more loosely defined.
>
The path to becoming a Professional Engineer:
http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensure_for_engineers/
Upon graduation from and accredited college or university and passing the
FE Exam the person becomes an Engineering Intern. After a certain number
of years of supervised work in engineering they can apply to take the PE
Exam.
Back in the 1980s there was a guy who made the rounds of high tech
companies in Southern and later Northern California. He claimed to have a
had a master's degree in engineering. It turned out that he never finished
high school and was a complete fraud and imposter.
He was able to jump from company to company because no one who hired him
had the courage to expose him for what he was. They gave him glowing
recommendations and were happy to see him go away.
Not only was he an arrogant fraud he was on the take with vendors and
suppliers too.
Leo, where are you now?
Chas.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 13:15:07
From: D'ohBoy
Subject: JB is the new JB!! WAS Re: New jim beam claims
|
JB has arrived!!!
Not only are people questioning his qualifications, but they are
carping about his rude behavior. Some say despite his attitude, he
posesses and dispenses valuable knowledge.
JB meet your doppelganger!
D'ohBoy
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 16:36:57
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: JB is the new JB!! WAS Re: New jim beam claims
|
"D'ohBoy" <petengail@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1190146507.515540.66740@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> JB has arrived!!!
That's "jb".
> Not only are people questioning his qualifications, but they are
> carping about his rude behavior.
Signs indeed of "arriving". Or of outliving the proverbial 15 minutes...
> Some say despite his attitude, he
> posesses and dispenses valuable knowledge.
Yay! Let's have a look at the beamboy groupies - Doug Taylor, Bill
Sornson... winners both!
> JB meet your doppelganger!
Is that a challenge or a dare?
> D'ohBoy
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 12:23:13
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: JB is the new JB!! WAS Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:36:57 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote:
>Yay! Let's have a look at the beamboy groupies - Doug Taylor, Bill
>Sornson... winners both!
I have no problem being associated with beamie.
If I can dish it out, I can take it.
But PULEEESE don't confuse me with the right wing nut, neocon loving,
Fox news worshipping, Christian crusading conspirators who have
destroyed life as we know it over the past 6 years of the Bush
Administration.
Give me a modicum of credit, bad attitude and foul language
notwithstanding.
Thank you.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 19:11:36
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
* * Chas wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > * * Chas wrote:
> > >
> > > In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
> > > frequently advanced degrees in the field.
> >
> > I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
> > sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an academic
> > degree in something.
>
> The term Metallurgist (as used in the US) is a professional job title like
> doctor, lawyer, dentist and so on. It has more to do with educational
> background than life and vocational experience. Most Metallurgists have
> degrees in engineering.
There are other (and sometimes better) ways to be an engineer than by
getting a degree in engineering. Qualifications are a reliable
indicator of specialized knowledge, but they are not a substitute for
that knowledge.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 15:33:28
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190142696.420865.71390@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> There are other (and sometimes better) ways to be an engineer than by
> getting a degree in engineering.
Not often can anything be better than a formal degree, in a given technical
field. Degrees don't only directly teach technical knowledge, but the
discipline of an academic pursuit enforces necessary systematic thinking and
scientific impartiality, as well as the requirement of scientific proof.
One may be able to attain engineering knowledge, but without the necessary
mindset in how to apply this knowledge, one merely becomes a "cookbook
engineer".
> Qualifications are a reliable
> indicator of specialized knowledge, but they are not a substitute for
> that knowledge.
However, academic qualifications can rarely be foregone if one desires not
just knowledge, but scientific mindset.
> Chalo
>
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 21:59:12
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote in message
news:46f027d7$0$26324$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1190142696.420865.71390@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > There are other (and sometimes better) ways to be an engineer than by
> > getting a degree in engineering.
>
> Not often can anything be better than a formal degree, in a given
technical
> field. Degrees don't only directly teach technical knowledge, but the
> discipline of an academic pursuit enforces necessary systematic thinking
and
> scientific impartiality, as well as the requirement of scientific proof.
>
> One may be able to attain engineering knowledge, but without the
necessary
> mindset in how to apply this knowledge, one merely becomes a "cookbook
> engineer".
>
> > Qualifications are a reliable
> > indicator of specialized knowledge, but they are not a substitute for
> > that knowledge.
>
> However, academic qualifications can rarely be foregone if one desires
not
> just knowledge, but scientific mindset.
>
> > Chalo
> >
Were talking about engineering not philosophy.
In the US and Canada, most TRUE Metallurgists are also PEs - Professional
Engineers which is a legal form of licensing. The initials PE behind an
engineers name means that they can legally PRACTICE engineering. This
almost always requires a degree in engineering from an accredited school
of higher education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Engineer
http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensure_for_engineers/
Any shade tree mechanic can call themselves an engineer ergo locomotive
train engineers, Operating Engineers and so on. That doesn't qualify them
to engineer bridges, buildings, cars or airplanes.
Chas.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 16:32:03
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
>> "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com>
>>> There are other (and sometimes better) ways to be an engineer than by
>>> getting a degree in engineering.
> "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote
>> Not often can anything be better than a formal degree, in a given
> technical
>> field. Degrees don't only directly teach technical knowledge, but the
>> discipline of an academic pursuit enforces necessary systematic thinking
> and
>> scientific impartiality, as well as the requirement of scientific proof.
>> One may be able to attain engineering knowledge, but without the
> necessary
>> mindset in how to apply this knowledge, one merely becomes a "cookbook
>> engineer".
>> "Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com>
>>> Qualifications are a reliable
>>> indicator of specialized knowledge, but they are not a substitute for
>>> that knowledge.
> "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote
>> However, academic qualifications can rarely be foregone if one desires
>> not just knowledge, but scientific mindset.
* * Chas wrote:
> Were talking about engineering not philosophy.
> In the US and Canada, most TRUE Metallurgists are also PEs - Professional
> Engineers which is a legal form of licensing. The initials PE behind an
> engineers name means that they can legally PRACTICE engineering. This
> almost always requires a degree in engineering from an accredited school
> of higher education.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Engineer
> http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensure_for_engineers/
> Any shade tree mechanic can call themselves an engineer ergo locomotive
> train engineers, Operating Engineers and so on. That doesn't qualify them
> to engineer bridges, buildings, cars or airplanes.
Good summary.
The confusion comes from Bolton & Watt, who leased their steam engines
priced to include their own machine operator or 'engineer', the practice
extending naturally into railroad engines. The occupation and the
credential get confused frequently. 'sanitation engineer' etc.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Waste_collector
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 11:03:30
From:
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sep 18, 12:31 pm, "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> "Chalo" <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190109228.405182.17860@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > * * Chas wrote:
>
> > > In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
> > > frequently advanced degrees in the field.
>
> > I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
> > sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an academic
> > degree in something.
>
> > Chalo
>
> The term Metallurgist (as used in the US) is a professional job title like
> doctor, lawyer, dentist and so on. It has more to do with educational
> background than life and vocational experience. Most Metallurgists have
> degrees in engineering.
I doubt that jim beam has a degree in engineering. ISTR that he's
frequently posted statements denigrating engineers and engineering
education.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 04:54:34
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sep 18, 5:35 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> again, this is possible: Jambo is Beam. Beam also appears with other
> email address and ID. The entire post is "Beam's" construction to
> amuse himself by controlling yawl.
Actually, it Jambo posts prolifically with several different
identities, in different groups and in other languages. He is been
posting for a long time. Beam doesn't seem to post as much and has
been posting under his current name since 2006.
Both have too much time.
Andres
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 15:25:31
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
<andresmuro@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1190116474.222553.55430@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 18, 5:35 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> again, this is possible: Jambo is Beam. Beam also appears with other
>> email address and ID. The entire post is "Beam's" construction to
>> amuse himself by controlling yawl.
>
> Actually, it Jambo posts prolifically with several different
> identities, in different groups and in other languages.
That's the roaming IP addresses you see. I can't speak any other language.
> He is been
> posting for a long time.
The last 2 years.
> Beam doesn't seem to post as much and has
> been posting under his current name since 2006.
Except for his other aliases.
> Both have too much time.
No more than you, really.
> Andres
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 08:34:47
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:54:34 -0700, "andresmuro@aol.com"
<andresmuro@aol.com > wrote:
>Both have too much time.
And in Jambo's case, not much to say.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 15:23:55
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com > wrote in message
news:7ehve31ncff50km1ehhupk0sue1gp2a3bg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:54:34 -0700, "andresmuro@aol.com"
> <andresmuro@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Both have too much time.
>
> And in Jambo's case, not much to say.
You and Bill Dougy, "The Simple Mind".....
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 11:35:46
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
again, this is possible: Jambo is Beam. Beam also appears with other
email address and ID. The entire post is "Beam's" construction to
amuse himself by controlling yawl.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 15:26:01
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1190115346.142421.246240@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> again, this is possible: Jambo is Beam. Beam also appears with other
> email address and ID. The entire post is "Beam's" construction to
> amuse himself by controlling yawl.
Mwahahahaa! You'll be the first against the wall when I rule the world!
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 09:53:48
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
* * Chas wrote:
>
> In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
> frequently advanced degrees in the field.
I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an academic
degree in something.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 17:21:34
From: Ben C
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On 2007-09-18, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:
> * * Chas wrote:
>>
>> In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
>> frequently advanced degrees in the field.
>
> I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
> sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an academic
> degree in something.
I've met two F1 engineers. Both were very interesting and intelligent.
One had degrees in all the kinds of thing you would expect, the other
had none-- his education consisted of a lifetime of souping up Fords.
I asked him about this and he said most teams have a mix of the two
kinds of people.
However good a university might be most people are only there for a few
years during which they are young and quite often drunk. I don't
understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than in
the rest of their lives.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 08:22:07
From:
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Stat magni nominis umbra." - Lucanus
On Sep 25, 7:18 pm, Sheldon Brown <CaptB...@sheldonbrown.com > wrote:
> IoannesDacey wrote:
> > My own interest in Latin was rekindled a few years ago, prompted by a
> > post a few years ago bySheldon Brown(who apparently speaks Latin
> > like the native of Olympus that he is)
>
> It's true that I speak Latin like a native of Olympus, but since
> Olympus is in Greece, that's not much of an accomplishment! ;-)
Apart from wanting to put the best spin on my gaffe, we all know that
most of the roman gods are just the old greek ones with new names
(Zeus >Jove; Hera>Juno; Athena>
Daytona; Poseidon >Neptune, et al), but nobody ever said that their
change of name included a change of address. I submit they're still
residents of Olympus!
> Sheldon "Gallia Est Omnes In Partes Tres Divisa" Brown
> Las Vegas, Nevada
> P.S. I'm out in Sin City for Interbike this week. Much to my
> chagrin, the Italianate hotel I'm staying at charges $10/day for
> "internet service" which turns out NOT to include an SMTP server, so I
> am not going to be able to respond to email in any detail this week.
>
I'm here at Interbike too, and similarly struggling to get connected
here with a new mini-laptop. Staying at "The Ankler's Rest" (apologies
to PGW and CF) a few blocks up the street from you (although likely
just another link in the chain of Perfecto-Zizzbaum hotels). I'll hope
to see you again somewhere along the aisles of the show displays.
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
Phone: 305-273-4440
http://www.businesscycles.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 00:42:42
From:
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:22:07 -0700, velocraft@gmail.com wrote:
>"Stat magni nominis umbra." - Lucanus
>I'm here at Interbike too, and similarly struggling to get connected
>here with a new mini-laptop. Staying at "The Ankler's Rest" (apologies
>to PGW and CF) a few blocks up the street from you (although likely
>just another link in the chain of Perfecto-Zizzbaum hotels). I'll hope
>to see you again somewhere along the aisles of the show displays.
>
>-------------------------------
>John Dacey
>Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
>Since 1983
>Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
>Phone: 305-273-4440
>http://www.businesscycles.com
Dear John,
"The Duke of Marlborough, whose wedding with Miss Consuelo Vanderbilt
is arranged for next month, was arrested yesterday, while cycling in
Central Park. He violated a Park ordinance by "coasting" down the hill
near McGown's Pass."
NYT Oct. 19, 1895
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9503E0D8113DE433A2575AC1A9669D94649ED7CF
The Duke neglected the elementary precaution of giving a false name
when arrested.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 00:36:59
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sep 23, 1:06 pm, John Dacey <jda...@businesscycles.com > wrote:
> "Nosse velint omnes, mercedem solvere nemo." - Juvenal
"a good discussion always leads to good ideas" Arthur Neville
Chamberlain
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 11:01:10
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1190767019.253249.240660@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 23, 1:06 pm, John Dacey <jda...@businesscycles.com> wrote:
>> "Nosse velint omnes, mercedem solvere nemo." - Juvenal
>
>
> "a good discussion always leads to good ideas" Arthur Neville
> Chamberlain
"A good discussion is not possible with beamboy" - Jambo
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 08:32:07
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:01:10 -0400, Jambo wrote:
> "A good discussion is not possible with beamboy" - Jambo
So failing that, you'll help him ruin the group. Thanks.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 20:05:30
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote in message
news:rozrzmfui9xj$.1b2pkm40dqrwy$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:01:10 -0400, Jambo wrote:
>
>> "A good discussion is not possible with beamboy" - Jambo
>
> So failing that, you'll help him ruin the group. Thanks.
Hmm, it's hard for you to avoid the threads between us?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 14:26:18
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:05:30 -0400, Jambo wrote:
> Hmm, it's hard for you to avoid the threads between us?
Of course, but you could save a large number of people the trouble,
modest though it is, by ceasing to behave like a small child making
a spectacle of himself.
Or is annoying other people your only pleasure in life?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 11:25:08
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote in message
news:xyo2b4x4lvg0.7epe699tqn5l$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:05:30 -0400, Jambo wrote:
>
>> Hmm, it's hard for you to avoid the threads between us?
>
> Of course,
Then just do so.
> but you could save a large number of people the trouble,
> modest though it is, by ceasing to behave like a small child making
> a spectacle of himself.
Just a tip for you: the "small child" analogy, while being obvious in its
intended insult, is a bizzare notion. Small children do not have
capabilities in arguing technical issues, let alone conversing with sulky
posters like yourself.
Tell you what, why don't you just carry on with your life, and try to
eliminate your obvious addiction to watching train wrecks happening.
> Or is annoying other people your only pleasure in life?
Are these posts really affecting your life in such a significant way? There
are many other pursuits in life you can undertake.
Besides, how do my posts in response to beamboy annoying you? Do you feel a
personal connection with beamboy?
And how is it that beamboy's years of abusive fraud to EVERYONE aren't
annoying you?
In any case, just wait until beamboy comes back - the peace and civility now
present in the ng will be shattered like beamboy's dreams and aspirations
foro his alter-ego.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 20:51:19
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1190767019.253249.240660@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 23, 1:06 pm, John Dacey <jda...@businesscycles.com> wrote:
> > "Nosse velint omnes, mercedem solvere nemo." - Juvenal
>
>
> "a good discussion always leads to good ideas" Arthur Neville
> Chamberlain
>
Chamberlain's speech upon returning from Munich in 1938 after he gave away
Czechoslovakia and opened the door for W.W.II.
"...the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been
achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which
all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German
Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon
it as well as mine...."
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime
Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it
is peace for our time..."
Chamberlain, the supreme wimp of the 20th century....
Chas.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 23:18:57
From: Sheldon Brown
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
Ioannes Dacey wrote:
> >I was sort of half-kidding. I enjoyed Latin too and would recommend it
> >to anyone. The point is that it has no obvious point but is still a good
> >thing to learn in school.
>
> How I long for the halcyon (not a latin root) days of high school
> detention spent translating Caesar's wars and the umpteen Catalinian
> Orations which whined about one perceived grievance or another.
>
> My own interest in Latin was rekindled a few years ago, prompted by a
> post a few years ago bySheldon Brown(who apparently speaks Latin
> like the native of Olympus that he is)
It's true that I speak Latin like a native of Olympus, but since
Olympus is in Greece, that's not much of an accomplishment! ;-)
My freshman year of high school I was at St. John's Prep, in Danvers,
Mass. They offered French and Latin...but they didn't allow the
students to choose. I was hot to learn French 'cause my brother was
living in Montpelier at the time, but the Xaverian brothers decreed
that it was Latin for me.
I hated it, and consider it a terrible waste of time. It would have
been much more useful to me to study French. As it turned out, I
didn't learn French until very much later.
All of the reasons commonly given for the benefits of learning Latin
actually apply just as much to French, since most of the Latin roots
in English came via France, brought over by William the Bastard (and
my possible ancestor, Grimbaldus the Norman)in 1066.
Sheldon "Gallia Est Omnes In Partes Tres Divisa" Brown
Las Vegas, Nevada
P.S. I'm out in Sin City for Interbike this week. Much to my
chagrin, the Italianate hotel I'm staying at charges $10/day for
"internet service" which turns out NOT to include an SMTP server, so I
am not going to be able to respond to email in any detail this week.
If you email me, you may get a few guttural grunts from my Palm Treo,
but I'm not so hot at typing on the leeetle buttons. Otherwise,
you'll likely have to wait 'til the weekend for a reply...
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 08:23:46
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-09-18, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
>> * * Chas wrote:
>>> In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
>>> frequently advanced degrees in the field.
>> I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
>> sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an academic
>> degree in something.
>
> I've met two F1 engineers. Both were very interesting and intelligent.
> One had degrees in all the kinds of thing you would expect, the other
> had none-- his education consisted of a lifetime of souping up Fords.
>
> I asked him about this and he said most teams have a mix of the two
> kinds of people.
This is a false dichotomy. There is nothing mutually exclusive between
the 2 categories. Many engineers with formal educations also have a
great deal of "hands-on" expertise. I know lots of engineers who have
degrees (even advanced ones) and have "spent a lifetime souping up
Fords", or the equivalent.
> However good a university might be most people are only there for a few
> years during which they are young and quite often drunk. I don't
> understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than in
> the rest of their lives.
Besides getting a foundation in basic science, an engineering education,
like virtually all tertiary educations, teaches students the skill of
independent study -- a prerequisite for lifetime learning outside of
institutions. All of my classes were "one-way" affairs, large lecture
halls and long reading lists with exams at the end. The specific fields
I found employment in after graduation did not even have courses
available, being too new -- a typical situation in engineering.
The problem with "rule of thumb" or "seat of the pants" "engineers" is
that these techniques don't scale or generalize. Intuition is fallible,
many real-world phenomena are not only non-intuitive, but actually
counter-intuitive (e.g. bike wheels standing on spokes) -- the only way
to successfully analyze these problems is formally, often with tools
(usually) unavailable to those without extended educations. One of the
real eye-openers for me was seeing math majors take our hardest EE
courses as "easy A's", simply because the math was trivial for them.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 11:14:20
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:p7CdnXt8Te1PiWzbnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Ben C wrote:
> > On 2007-09-18, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> * * Chas wrote:
> >>> In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
> >>> frequently advanced degrees in the field.
> >> I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
> >> sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an academic
> >> degree in something.
> >
> > I've met two F1 engineers. Both were very interesting and intelligent.
> > One had degrees in all the kinds of thing you would expect, the other
> > had none-- his education consisted of a lifetime of souping up Fords.
> >
> > I asked him about this and he said most teams have a mix of the two
> > kinds of people.
>
> This is a false dichotomy. There is nothing mutually exclusive between
> the 2 categories. Many engineers with formal educations also have a
> great deal of "hands-on" expertise. I know lots of engineers who have
> degrees (even advanced ones) and have "spent a lifetime souping up
> Fords", or the equivalent.
>
>
> > However good a university might be most people are only there for a
few
> > years during which they are young and quite often drunk. I don't
> > understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than in
> > the rest of their lives.
>
> Besides getting a foundation in basic science, an engineering education,
> like virtually all tertiary educations, teaches students the skill of
> independent study -- a prerequisite for lifetime learning outside of
> institutions. All of my classes were "one-way" affairs, large lecture
> halls and long reading lists with exams at the end. The specific fields
> I found employment in after graduation did not even have courses
> available, being too new -- a typical situation in engineering.
>
> The problem with "rule of thumb" or "seat of the pants" "engineers" is
> that these techniques don't scale or generalize. Intuition is fallible,
> many real-world phenomena are not only non-intuitive, but actually
> counter-intuitive (e.g. bike wheels standing on spokes) -- the only way
> to successfully analyze these problems is formally, often with tools
> (usually) unavailable to those without extended educations. One of the
> real eye-openers for me was seeing math majors take our hardest EE
> courses as "easy A's", simply because the math was trivial for them.
I agree....
I've worked as a manufacturing engineer and independent consultant for
over 30 years. Much of what I've learned I picked up on the job but
without my educational background it would have been more difficult to
learn.
I studied engineering and metallurgy but forgot most of the stuff that I
didn't need to know to do my job - that's what books are for. I already
had a degree but I needed another year and a half of engineering courses
to become a degreed engineer. A second degree wouldn't have put any more
money in my pocket.
For liability reasons I only do concept drawings and let the MEs
(mechanical engineers or other degreed engineers) crunch the numbers and
take responsibility for making sure that the products are engineered
correctly.
Many of my counterparts in Germany worked their way off of the production
floor to became manufacturing engineers. Two to five years of operating
machinery and making parts gives them a lot of insight into manufacturing
processes.
I've known a lot of people in manufacturing in the US and Canada who have
also come off the shop floor to assume engineering positions.
The technical education system in Germany is superior to that in the US.
Mathematics taught in their secondary education system are almost the
equivalent of a US degree.
I still like to know that the roads and buildings I use were designed by
civil engineers and the cars and planes by MEs.
BTW.... sorry guys but most of the engineering students that I ran across
were serious, boring nerds and geeks who didn't party much. They were home
doing differential equations.
Chas.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 21:34:31
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article
<S7GdnTn03NPw-2zbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> BTW.... sorry guys but most of the engineering students that I ran across
> were serious, boring nerds and geeks who didn't party much. They were home
> doing differential equations.
The sophomore mechanical engineering students
at my school were doing thermodynamics.
(and differential equations, of course)
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 22:28:59
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote in message
news:slrnff0jr3.3gu.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
> On 2007-09-18, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
> > * * Chas wrote:
> >>
> >> In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
> >> frequently advanced degrees in the field.
> >
> > I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
> > sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an academic
> > degree in something.
>
> I've met two F1 engineers. Both were very interesting and intelligent.
> One had degrees in all the kinds of thing you would expect, the other
> had none-- his education consisted of a lifetime of souping up Fords.
>
> I asked him about this and he said most teams have a mix of the two
> kinds of people.
>
> However good a university might be most people are only there for a few
> years during which they are young and quite often drunk. I don't
> understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than in
> the rest of their lives.
http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensure_for_engineers/
Chas.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 18:36:16
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article
<slrnff0jr3.3gu.spamspam@bowser.marioworld >,
Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote:
> However good a university might be most people are only there for a few
> years during which they are young and quite often drunk. I don't
> understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than in
> the rest of their lives.
Just because you do not see them in their cells
swotting for four years straight does not mean they are
not there. When they are seen outside their cell the
drunks shout abuse at them.
Practical knowledge is easily picked up. One reason is
that a theoretical framework absorbs empirical
knowledge like a sponge. Another reason is that the hands-on,
school-of-hard-knocks, learn-on-the-job guys
love to prove to the college boy how much they know;
and tell him all. Another fine myth is the know-it-all
college boy. They exist, but you never notice all the
quiet ones.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 23:32:36
From:
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
Ben C? writes:
>>> In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
>>> frequently advanced degrees in the field.
>> I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
>> sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an
>> academic degree in something.
> I've met two F1 engineers. Both were very interesting and
> intelligent. One had degrees in all the kinds of thing you would
> expect, the other had none-- his education consisted of a lifetime
> of souping up Fords.
> I asked him about this and he said most teams have a mix of the two
> kinds of people.
> However good a university might be most people are only there for a
> few years during which they are young and quite often drunk. I don't
> understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than
> in the rest of their lives.
Don't reveal that you didn't take advantage of higher education. What
one should learn in those years is WHY rather than how. Mechanics
work on machines daily and know how to make them work, but don't
understand the science behind those failures... as we see here often
enough.
While working in Stuttgart, an NSU Wankel drove into our research yard
as we looked down from the design office. I said at that time: "Mark
my words, that engine will not survive on the market." to the
amazement of my colleagues, all engineers of one ilk or another. I
could say that because I had been exposed to the theory of operation
of internal combustion engines, a dull subject to most auto
aficionados but well worth the time.
Unfortunately, today the rush to "get on with reality" has shifted the
emphasis to a trade school approach, spending much time on current
hardware.
It makes a difference. The theory offered in good engineering schools
is worth a lot and experience reinforces those principals. I have
come across many of these instances in my work. For instance,the
failures of the Shay steam locomotive was never understood in more
than 100 years of service, yet it jumped out at me when reviewing
derailment pictures and reading about them, so I wrote about it:
http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/grd_loco.html
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 08:31:30
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Unfortunately, today the rush to "get on with reality" has shifted the
> emphasis to a trade school approach, spending much time on current
> hardware.
There was a funny episode after a talk about smalltalk (programming
language) by Alan Kay (originator) at Stanford after a lecture he gave.
One of the audience asked whether Kay had done anything new in the last
25 years, whereupon he rebutted that Stanford's current exclusive focus
on java had turned them into a trade school. I think Kay made the better
point.
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 22:34:22
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote in message
news:46f06014$0$14095$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Ben C? writes:
>
> >>> In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
> >>> frequently advanced degrees in the field.
>
> >> I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
> >> sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an
> >> academic degree in something.
>
> > I've met two F1 engineers. Both were very interesting and
> > intelligent. One had degrees in all the kinds of thing you would
> > expect, the other had none-- his education consisted of a lifetime
> > of souping up Fords.
>
> > I asked him about this and he said most teams have a mix of the two
> > kinds of people.
>
> > However good a university might be most people are only there for a
> > few years during which they are young and quite often drunk. I don't
> > understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than
> > in the rest of their lives.
>
> Don't reveal that you didn't take advantage of higher education. What
> one should learn in those years is WHY rather than how. Mechanics
> work on machines daily and know how to make them work, but don't
> understand the science behind those failures... as we see here often
> enough.
>
> While working in Stuttgart, an NSU Wankel drove into our research yard
> as we looked down from the design office. I said at that time: "Mark
> my words, that engine will not survive on the market." to the
> amazement of my colleagues, all engineers of one ilk or another. I
> could say that because I had been exposed to the theory of operation
> of internal combustion engines, a dull subject to most auto
> aficionados but well worth the time.
>
> Unfortunately, today the rush to "get on with reality" has shifted the
> emphasis to a trade school approach, spending much time on current
> hardware.
>
> It makes a difference. The theory offered in good engineering schools
> is worth a lot and experience reinforces those principals. I have
> come across many of these instances in my work. For instance,the
> failures of the Shay steam locomotive was never understood in more
> than 100 years of service, yet it jumped out at me when reviewing
> derailment pictures and reading about them, so I wrote about it:
>
> http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/grd_loco.html
>
> Jobst Brandt
If you know how something works, you can always get a job...... working
for the person who knows why it works.
Chas.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 21:41:40
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
* * Chas wrote:
> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
> news:46f06014$0$14095$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Ben C? writes:
>>
>>>>> In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
>>>>> frequently advanced degrees in the field.
>>>> I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
>>>> sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an
>>>> academic degree in something.
>>> I've met two F1 engineers. Both were very interesting and
>>> intelligent. One had degrees in all the kinds of thing you would
>>> expect, the other had none-- his education consisted of a lifetime
>>> of souping up Fords.
>>> I asked him about this and he said most teams have a mix of the two
>>> kinds of people.
>>> However good a university might be most people are only there for a
>>> few years during which they are young and quite often drunk. I don't
>>> understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than
>>> in the rest of their lives.
>> Don't reveal that you didn't take advantage of higher education. What
>> one should learn in those years is WHY rather than how. Mechanics
>> work on machines daily and know how to make them work, but don't
>> understand the science behind those failures... as we see here often
>> enough.
>>
>> While working in Stuttgart, an NSU Wankel drove into our research yard
>> as we looked down from the design office. I said at that time: "Mark
>> my words, that engine will not survive on the market." to the
>> amazement of my colleagues, all engineers of one ilk or another. I
>> could say that because I had been exposed to the theory of operation
>> of internal combustion engines, a dull subject to most auto
>> aficionados but well worth the time.
>>
>> Unfortunately, today the rush to "get on with reality" has shifted the
>> emphasis to a trade school approach, spending much time on current
>> hardware.
>>
>> It makes a difference. The theory offered in good engineering schools
>> is worth a lot and experience reinforces those principals. I have
>> come across many of these instances in my work. For instance,the
>> failures of the Shay steam locomotive was never understood in more
>> than 100 years of service, yet it jumped out at me when reviewing
>> derailment pictures and reading about them, so I wrote about it:
>>
>> http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/grd_loco.html
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> If you know how something works, you can always get a job...... working
> for the person who knows why it works.
>
great observation!
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 21:15:09
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Ben C? writes:
>
>>>> In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
>>>> frequently advanced degrees in the field.
>
>>> I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
>>> sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an
>>> academic degree in something.
>
>> I've met two F1 engineers. Both were very interesting and
>> intelligent. One had degrees in all the kinds of thing you would
>> expect, the other had none-- his education consisted of a lifetime
>> of souping up Fords.
>
>> I asked him about this and he said most teams have a mix of the two
>> kinds of people.
>
>> However good a university might be most people are only there for a
>> few years during which they are young and quite often drunk. I don't
>> understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than
>> in the rest of their lives.
>
> Don't reveal that you didn't take advantage of higher education. What
> one should learn in those years is WHY rather than how. Mechanics
> work on machines daily and know how to make them work, but don't
> understand the science behind those failures... as we see here often
> enough.
>
> While working in Stuttgart, an NSU Wankel drove into our research yard
> as we looked down from the design office. I said at that time: "Mark
> my words, that engine will not survive on the market." to the
> amazement of my colleagues, all engineers of one ilk or another. I
> could say that because I had been exposed to the theory of operation
> of internal combustion engines, a dull subject to most auto
> aficionados but well worth the time.
>
> Unfortunately, today the rush to "get on with reality" has shifted the
> emphasis to a trade school approach, spending much time on current
> hardware.
>
> It makes a difference. The theory offered in good engineering schools
> is worth a lot and experience reinforces those principals.
the principals are those that run the school. principles are what you
learn there.
> I have
> come across many of these instances in my work. For instance,the
> failures of the Shay steam locomotive was never understood in more
> than 100 years of service, yet it jumped out at me when reviewing
> derailment pictures and reading about them, so I wrote about it:
>
> http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/grd_loco.html
you have good engineering principles? how come you never figured out
that j-bend spokes would be subject to a bending moment that causes fatigue?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 09:47:14
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
jim beam wrote:
> you have good engineering principles? how come you never figured out
> that j-bend spokes would be subject to a bending moment that causes
> fatigue?
>
Correct your spoke line and you won't have that problem any more.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 20:49:03
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> you have good engineering principles? how come you never figured out
>> that j-bend spokes would be subject to a bending moment that causes
>> fatigue?
>>
>
> Correct your spoke line and you won't have that problem any more.
except that you will because it's a fundamental feature of having the
load offset from the spoke axis. duh.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 18:51:35
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote in message
news:slrnff0jr3.3gu.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
> I've met two F1 engineers. Both were very interesting and intelligent.
> One had degrees in all the kinds of thing you would expect, the other
> had none-- his education consisted of a lifetime of souping up Fords.
"Engineer" has a loose definition in many industries. Train drivers are
still called engineers in many parts of the world, although they have no
training in what can be considered "conventional" engineering domains.
Many non-tertiary qualified technicians get to be called engineers often
only as a recognition of their seniority in the particular trade they're
qualified in.
> However good a university might be most people are only there for a few
> years during which they are young and quite often drunk.
An unfortunate Hollywood stereotype that isn't really credible. There may
be those who fit that stereotype, but much more who don't.
> I don't
> understand why people expect to learn more in that short time than in
> the rest of their lives.
Neither does anyone else - a tertiary education gives you the basic tools
for advancing your technical knowledge and expertise in your particular
field. It's not meant to be the be-all of education and learning.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 09:31:25
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190109228.405182.17860@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> * * Chas wrote:
> >
> > In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
> > frequently advanced degrees in the field.
>
> I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
> sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an academic
> degree in something.
>
> Chalo
>
The term Metallurgist (as used in the US) is a professional job title like
doctor, lawyer, dentist and so on. It has more to do with educational
background than life and vocational experience. Most Metallurgists have
degrees in engineering.
Most Metallurgists are employed by mining interests, metal producers or
testing labs. The only vocational claim I recall that Jim Beam made was
that he worked for a metal plater that did aluminum anodizing in Northern
California???
I can drive a car and I could drive it around a race track but that
doesn't make me a race car driver.
Jim Beam frequently quotes information out of basic Metallurgy books or
online sources to support his arguments. That doesn't make him a
Metallurgist.
Chas.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 11:12:16
From: _
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:53:48 -0000, Chalo wrote:
> * * Chas wrote:
>>
>> In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
>> frequently advanced degrees in the field.
>
> I was pointing out, by implication, that there are other (and
> sometimes better) ways to build knowledge than by getting an academic
> degree in something.
>
> Chalo
Including frequent use of insults and vulgarity on usenet?
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 23:03:05
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
juste les faits '65?
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 21:03:19
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
corneille avec de la sauce =E0 poire?
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 06:51:57
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article
<1190062999.216313.157780@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote:
> corneille avec de la sauce ? poire?
A shot of Old Overholt.
As Dooley Wilson tells us
"It takes the sting out of being occupied."
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 14:35:33
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
>corneille avec de la sauce à poire?
Oui. Sans oignons, svp. Recommanderiez-vous un vin rouge ou un blanc ?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 18:06:39
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article <DqCHi.8425$z_5.4485@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com >,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> >corneille avec de la sauce à poire?
>
> Oui. Sans oignons, svp. Recommanderiez-vous un vin rouge ou un blanc ?
Avec cette sauce et les oiseaux sauvages, je compte un cidre de Normande.
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 02:50:40
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:06:39 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>In article <DqCHi.8425$z_5.4485@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
>> >corneille avec de la sauce à poire?
>>
>> Oui. Sans oignons, svp. Recommanderiez-vous un vin rouge ou un blanc ?
>
>Avec cette sauce et les oiseaux sauvages, je compte un cidre de Normande.
Beurk !
Ça me donne envie de gerber ...
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 09:08:58
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article <j38ue31n3b7bi922ptup9iis4h9posg6qs@4ax.com >,
Andrew Price <ajprice@free.fr > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:06:39 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <DqCHi.8425$z_5.4485@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >corneille avec de la sauce à poire?
> >>
> >> Oui. Sans oignons, svp. Recommanderiez-vous un vin rouge ou un
> >> blanc ?
> >
> >Avec cette sauce et les oiseaux sauvages, je compte un cidre de
> >Normande.
>
> Beurk !
>
> Ça me donne envie de gerber ...
Je ne comprendre pas "gerber" dans cette contexte. Est-ce que c'est une
expression familière?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 19:39:13
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:08:58 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>> Beurk !
>>
>> Ça me donne envie de gerber ...
>
>Je ne comprendre pas "gerber" dans cette contexte. Est-ce que c'est une
>expression familière?
Oui - même *très* familière ! Du Petit Robert :
Fam. Vomir. Fig. "C'est à gerber. Ça me fait gerber : ça me dégoûte."
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 16:04:16
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article <k530f31f839i20ekrhkgbrh0muiom16cva@4ax.com >,
Andrew Price <ajprice@free.fr > wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:08:58 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >> Beurk !
> >>
> >> Ça me donne envie de gerber ...
> >
> >Je ne comprendre pas "gerber" dans cette contexte. Est-ce que c'est
> >une expression familière?
>
> Oui - même *très* familière ! Du Petit Robert :
>
> Fam. Vomir. Fig. "C'est à gerber. Ça me fait gerber : ça me dégoûte."
Oh! C'est l'équivalent français de « puke. » C'est une bonne expression
à se rappeler. Merci !
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 00:46:33
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:04:16 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>Oh! C'est l'équivalent français de « puke. »
Voilà !
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 08:47:45
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sep 17, 7:01 am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 7:47 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 10:12 pm, "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote:
>
> > > Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
> > > re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
> > > school".
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killfile
>
> >http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
>
> Even easier (No Download Required!): "No Likey, No Clickey", IOW, if
> their posts bug ya, don't read 'em.
That is my approach too. I just read what I want and skip what I
don't. When I go to the library, I don't expect to only see the books
that I want to read. I see lots of books by authors that I am not
interested in. I don't pick them up and read them cause they are
there.
I remember when I was in K-12, in the olden times. They taught us to
read a text selectively. You would scan through the text and focus on
the things that you thought were relevant and important and skip what
was not of value to you. It was a useful trick that I used during
college with success and use in my daily life when I read, do
research, etc. It works quite well. If I know that an author or
subject does not appeal to me, I simply skip it. Yet, I have the
option of having it available if I decide to read it later.
I have the feeling that people don't learn this skill anymore. Being
unable to skim through text and be selective, some may need
killfiles.
Andres
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 06:01:22
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sep 17, 7:47 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 10:12 pm, "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote:
>
> > Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
> > re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
> > school".
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killfile
>
> http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
Even easier (No Download Required!): "No Likey, No Clickey", IOW, if
their posts bug ya, don't read 'em.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 20:50:44
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
>> > Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
>> > re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
>> > school".
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killfile
>>
>> http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
>
> Even easier (No Download Required!): "No Likey, No Clickey", IOW, if
> their posts bug ya, don't read 'em.
Or simply respond in a fashion that isn't likely to elicit a flaming
response. Instead of saying outright that someone's wrong, try to figure out
how they came to their conclusion. Refrain from name-calling and swearing
and whatever else is used, intentionally or otherwise, to push someone into
a corner from which feel they need to fight their way out of, rather than
consider that it's possible there's another angle they hadn't considered.
And above all else, keep in mind that, when you're absolutely 100% certain
of something, those are the times when it's most likely you're wrong. Hate
it when that happens, but life goes a whole lot easier once you realize that
eating bit of crow now & then is not such a bad thing in your diet.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 19:01:44
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>> Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
>>>> re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
>>>> school".
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killfile
>>>
>>> http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
>> Even easier (No Download Required!): "No Likey, No Clickey", IOW, if
>> their posts bug ya, don't read 'em.
>
> Or simply respond in a fashion that isn't likely to elicit a flaming
> response. Instead of saying outright that someone's wrong, try to figure out
> how they came to their conclusion. Refrain from name-calling and swearing
> and whatever else is used, intentionally or otherwise, to push someone into
> a corner from which feel they need to fight their way out of, rather than
> consider that it's possible there's another angle they hadn't considered.
I'm afraid that won't work in this context.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 17:33:14
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
>> Or simply respond in a fashion that isn't likely to elicit a flaming
>> response. Instead of saying outright that someone's wrong, try to figure
>> out how they came to their conclusion. Refrain from name-calling and
>> swearing and whatever else is used, intentionally or otherwise, to push
>> someone into a corner from which feel they need to fight their way out
>> of, rather than consider that it's possible there's another angle they
>> hadn't considered.
>
> I'm afraid that won't work in this context.
Then perhaps you should join in on our discussion of fine food & wine,
graciously started by Datakoll? It's already taxing the limits of my French.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:-I2dnYMC5s3KmnLbnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>> Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
>>>>> re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
>>>>> school".
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killfile
>>>>
>>>> http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
>>> Even easier (No Download Required!): "No Likey, No Clickey", IOW, if
>>> their posts bug ya, don't read 'em.
>>
>> Or simply respond in a fashion that isn't likely to elicit a flaming
>> response. Instead of saying outright that someone's wrong, try to figure
>> out how they came to their conclusion. Refrain from name-calling and
>> swearing and whatever else is used, intentionally or otherwise, to push
>> someone into a corner from which feel they need to fight their way out
>> of, rather than consider that it's possible there's another angle they
>> hadn't considered.
>
> I'm afraid that won't work in this context.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 01:01:36
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote in message
news:d1FHi.2872$4J3.1089@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> >> Or simply respond in a fashion that isn't likely to elicit a flaming
> >> response. Instead of saying outright that someone's wrong, try to
figure
> >> out how they came to their conclusion. Refrain from name-calling and
> >> swearing and whatever else is used, intentionally or otherwise, to
push
> >> someone into a corner from which feel they need to fight their way
out
> >> of, rather than consider that it's possible there's another angle
they
> >> hadn't considered.
> >
> > I'm afraid that won't work in this context.
>
> Then perhaps you should join in on our discussion of fine food & wine,
> graciously started by Datakoll? It's already taxing the limits of my
French.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>
> "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:-I2dnYMC5s3KmnLbnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>>>> Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
> >>>>> re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended
"materials
> >>>>> school".
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killfile
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
> >>> Even easier (No Download Required!): "No Likey, No Clickey", IOW, if
> >>> their posts bug ya, don't read 'em.
> >>
> >> Or simply respond in a fashion that isn't likely to elicit a flaming
> >> response. Instead of saying outright that someone's wrong, try to
figure
> >> out how they came to their conclusion. Refrain from name-calling and
> >> swearing and whatever else is used, intentionally or otherwise, to
push
> >> someone into a corner from which feel they need to fight their way
out
> >> of, rather than consider that it's possible there's another angle
they
> >> hadn't considered.
> >
> > I'm afraid that won't work in this context.
>
>
Just pour the friggin plunk mate!
Chas.
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 05:47:06
From: landotter
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sep 16, 10:12 pm, "Jambo" <-...@-.- > wrote:
> Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
> re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
> school".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killfile
http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 18:01:13
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
In article <1190033226.719308.260030@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
landotter <landotter@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 16, 10:12 pm, "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote:
> > Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
> > re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended
> > "materials school".
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killfile
>
> http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
Works for me.
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 05:18:32
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Sep 17, 5:00 am, _ <jtayNOSPAM...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com >
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:24:58 -0000, Chalo wrote:
> > Jambo wrote:
>
> >> Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
> >> re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
> >> school".
>
> > I don't think we have any particular reason to doubt his self-
> > identification as a metallurgist; after all, there are different
> > academic, career, and avocational paths that could lead one to that
> > expertise. Each of them would imply slightly different jargon and
> > analytical approaches.
>
> > But just because a man is a metallurgist doesn't mean he can't be
> > frequently mistaken.
>
> > jb's technical assertions are worth considering even when they are in
> > error. Arguing with the man is of no use, though-- even when he is in
> > error. As a rule, he does not accept correction and becomes
> > increasingly abusive when the matter is pressed. One refutation is
> > enough, for the benefit of others who might be reading. More than
> > that just decreases the signal-to-noise ratio.
>
> Indeed - like pig wrestling; both get muddy, but "jim bean" enjoys it.
jb/dt/ts......gang of 3
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 23:03:35
From: Doug Taylor
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:18:32 -0700, "Qui si parla
Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
>jb/dt/ts......gang of 3
pc/ob.... gang of 2
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 05:24:58
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
Jambo wrote:
>
> Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
> re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
> school".
I don't think we have any particular reason to doubt his self-
identification as a metallurgist; after all, there are different
academic, career, and avocational paths that could lead one to that
expertise. Each of them would imply slightly different jargon and
analytical approaches.
But just because a man is a metallurgist doesn't mean he can't be
frequently mistaken.
jb's technical assertions are worth considering even when they are in
error. Arguing with the man is of no use, though-- even when he is in
error. As a rule, he does not accept correction and becomes
increasingly abusive when the matter is pressed. One refutation is
enough, for the benefit of others who might be reading. More than
that just decreases the signal-to-noise ratio.
You should consider getting a different and better pastime.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 15:21:33
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190006698.285072.88920@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Jambo wrote:
>>
>> Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
>> re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
>> school".
>
> I don't think we have any particular reason to doubt his self-
> identification as a metallurgist; after all, there are different
> academic, career, and avocational paths that could lead one to that
> expertise.
However, when one's arguments consist of "I'm a metallurgist, therefore
you're wrong", and then proceeds to outline faulty technical grasp of
scientific concepts, it's the only reasonable conclusion to reach that
beamboy merely parrots what he reads out of context.
> Each of them would imply slightly different jargon and
> analytical approaches.
Not to the extent that beamboy has.
> But just because a man is a metallurgist doesn't mean he can't be
> frequently mistaken.
That's neither here nor there.
> jb's technical assertions are worth considering even when they are in
> error.
You talk of signal to noise ratio below - beamboy's is mostly noise.
> You should consider getting a different and better pastime.
What makes you believe I don't?
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 00:59:00
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
"Chalo" <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190006698.285072.88920@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Jambo wrote:
> >
> > Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
> > re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
> > school".
>
> I don't think we have any particular reason to doubt his self-
> identification as a metallurgist; after all, there are different
> academic, career, and avocational paths that could lead one to that
> expertise. Each of them would imply slightly different jargon and
> analytical approaches.
>
> But just because a man is a metallurgist doesn't mean he can't be
> frequently mistaken.
>
> jb's technical assertions are worth considering even when they are in
> error. Arguing with the man is of no use, though-- even when he is in
> error. As a rule, he does not accept correction and becomes
> increasingly abusive when the matter is pressed. One refutation is
> enough, for the benefit of others who might be reading. More than
> that just decreases the signal-to-noise ratio.
>
> You should consider getting a different and better pastime.
>
> Chalo
>
In the US Metallurgists almost always have engineering degrees and
frequently advanced degrees in the field.
Here's a breakdown of the field and some of the requirements:
http://jobprofiles.monster.com/Content/job_content/JC_engineering__construction__and_graphic_design/JSC_manufacturing_engineering/JOB_Metallurgist/jobzilla_html
Chas.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 11:00:07
From: _
Subject: Re: New jim beam claims
|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:24:58 -0000, Chalo wrote:
> Jambo wrote:
>>
>> Now beamboy has dropped the "former metallurgist" claim, and has
>> re-classified himself as a "metallurgist" who has attended "materials
>> school".
>
> I don't think we have any particular reason to doubt his self-
> identification as a metallurgist; after all, there are different
> academic, career, and avocational paths that could lead one to that
> expertise. Each of them would imply slightly different jargon and
> analytical approaches.
>
> But just because a man is a metallurgist doesn't mean he can't be
> frequently mistaken.
>
> jb's technical assertions are worth considering even when they are in
> error. Arguing with the man is of no use, though-- even when he is in
> error. As a rule, he does not accept correction and becomes
> increasingly abusive when the matter is pressed. One refutation is
> enough, for the benefit of others who might be reading. More than
> that just decreases the signal-to-noise ratio.
>
Indeed - like pig wrestling; both get muddy, but "jim bean" enjoys it.
|
|
