more cfrp bleating

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 21 Sep 2007 06:40:34
From: jim beam
Subject: more cfrp bleating

http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/20/1352208.shtml

fortunately, the slashdot crowd is a little more analytical.

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=303589&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20680345#20680839

Date: 22 Sep 2007 20:59:08
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

On Sep 22, 7:39 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <46f48b19$0$32512$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Jambo" <-...@-.->
> wrote:
> > "jim beam" <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> >news:Gc6dnUION8kq8mnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> > > Jambo wrote:
> > >> The subject title of your post is so appropriate.
>
> > >> It's not surprising that you think a non-peer reviewed website,
> > >> run by folks with names such as CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and
> > >> full of anonymous posters with no credentials, bleating on about
> > >> topics with no references nor publications cited, is "a little
> > >> more analytical"?
>
> > > er, actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron.
> > > in much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!
>
> > Great, so says CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and yourself, of
> > course. You wouldn't have any proof of their credentials, would you?
>
> > Lying fucktard.
>
> Oh, he's probably right. But the vast majority of them are *software
> engineers.*

When I've looked at slashdot science threads on a
subject that I know something about (astrophysics, nothing
to do with engineering or CF), there have been maybe
10% knowledgeable, accurate posts, and the remaining
90% split between: the usual slashdot jokes, a few people
who have a popular-press understanding of the issue, and
a substantial contingent of people who think they know
because they are "techies," but really have no clue what
they are talking about.

This isn't really a criticism of slashdot; it's the
nature of the enterprise. I do think the editors
sometimes originate threads based on BS articles that
they should know better than to post.

My guess is that if slashdot were to discuss bicycle
technology, they'd rise approximately to the level of
the cyclingnews.com letters column.

Ben

Date: 22 Sep 2007 23:11:37
From: _
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:59:08 -0000, bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

> On Sep 22, 7:39 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> In article <46f48b19$0$32512$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Jambo" <-...@-.->
>> wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Gc6dnUION8kq8mnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> > Jambo wrote:
>>> >> The subject title of your post is so appropriate.
>>
>>> >> It's not surprising that you think a non-peer reviewed website,
>>> >> run by folks with names such as CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and
>>> >> full of anonymous posters with no credentials, bleating on about
>>> >> topics with no references nor publications cited, is "a little
>>> >> more analytical"?
>>
>>> > er, actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron.
>>> > in much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!
>>
>>> Great, so says CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and yourself, of
>>> course. You wouldn't have any proof of their credentials, would you?
>>
>>> Lying fucktard.
>>
>> Oh, he's probably right. But the vast majority of them are *software
>> engineers.*
>
> When I've looked at slashdot science threads on a
> subject that I know something about (astrophysics, nothing
> to do with engineering or CF), there have been maybe
> 10% knowledgeable, accurate posts, and the remaining
> 90% split between: the usual slashdot jokes, a few people
> who have a popular-press understanding of the issue, and
> a substantial contingent of people who think they know
> because they are "techies," but really have no clue what
> they are talking about.
>
> This isn't really a criticism of slashdot; it's the
> nature of the enterprise. I do think the editors
> sometimes originate threads based on BS articles that
> they should know better than to post.
>
> My guess is that if slashdot were to discuss bicycle
> technology, they'd rise approximately to the level of
> the cyclingnews.com letters column.
>

That looks pretty good to "jim beam"...

Date: 22 Sep 2007 12:01:19
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Date: 22 Sep 2007 11:53:22
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

jim beam wrote:
> http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/20/1352208.shtml
>
> fortunately, the slashdot crowd is a little more analytical.
>
> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=303589&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20680345#20680839

Most of the slashdot comments were pretty random, not really addressing
the concerns of the Dan Rather story.

For anyone interested in the actual letter that Vincent Weldon
(ex-Boeing employee) sent to the FAA, it is here:

<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/09/17/2003889769.pdf >

I found it to be a rather detailed and interesting description of the
issues. Most of the concerns discussed (g-force transmission to
passengers, lightning strikes, toxic combustion byproducts) have little
relevance to the use of CF in bikes. His description of the fundamental
characteristics of composites are pretty interesting in light of prior
threads, though. Many of those are relevant to bikes.

I wouldn't dismiss this guy as a crank, although I think he could have a
better spokesperson than Dan Rather.

Date: 22 Sep 2007 09:16:08
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/20/1352208.shtml
>>
>> fortunately, the slashdot crowd is a little more analytical.
>>
>> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=303589&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20680345#20680839
>
>
>
> Most of the slashdot comments were pretty random, not really addressing
> the concerns of the Dan Rather story.
>
>
> For anyone interested in the actual letter that Vincent Weldon
> (ex-Boeing employee) sent to the FAA, it is here:
>
> <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/09/17/2003889769.pdf>
>
> I found it to be a rather detailed and interesting description of the
> issues. Most of the concerns discussed (g-force transmission to
> passengers, lightning strikes, toxic combustion byproducts) have little
> relevance to the use of CF in bikes. His description of the fundamental
> characteristics of composites are pretty interesting in light of prior
> threads, though. Many of those are relevant to bikes.
>
> I wouldn't dismiss this guy as a crank, although I think he could have a
> better spokesperson than Dan Rather.

who gives a damn about dan rather? /i/ posted it as a follow-up to carl
fogel's story on the same subject. and it illustrates what happens when
the uninformed and hysterical start bleating about subjects on which
they have no knowledge, but an easily exploitable fear of what to them
is the unknown.

as a further example, here in the bay area, we're building a new span to
the bay bridge. one day during the most visible new construction phase,
there was a sensational headline picked up in the local media about
defective welds and "massive cover-up" on behalf of the contractor.
source? disgruntled former worker that had been fired and who wanted to
stir up trouble - and who knew enough technical jargon to cook up a
credible sounding story to the uninitiated. and the media, being
uninitiated, takes his story as sufficiently sensational to run with.
the story died out after the "source"'s credentials and history were
exposed, and after the contractors had wasted a bunch of time and money
going back through their testing certification, but it's a "story" that
would never have come to light if the media had done even basic
background checking or bothered to speak with other engineers first.

and what do we have here? an identically disgruntled former employee
with a mouthful of "credible" sounding doomsday warnings approaching an
ignorant but sensation-seeking media looking to stir up trouble. and
apparently succeeding if the ridiculous bleating on r.b.t is a gauge.

still, as part of the old saying goes, "you can fool some people all of
the time", and thus it is proved.

Date: 22 Sep 2007 14:56:54
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/20/1352208.shtml
>>>
>>> fortunately, the slashdot crowd is a little more analytical.
>>>
>>> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=303589&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20680345#20680839
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Most of the slashdot comments were pretty random, not really
>> addressing the concerns of the Dan Rather story.
>>
>>
>> For anyone interested in the actual letter that Vincent Weldon
>> (ex-Boeing employee) sent to the FAA, it is here:
>>
>> <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/09/17/2003889769.pdf>
>>
>> I found it to be a rather detailed and interesting description of the
>> issues. Most of the concerns discussed (g-force transmission to
>> passengers, lightning strikes, toxic combustion byproducts) have
>> little relevance to the use of CF in bikes. His description of the
>> fundamental characteristics of composites are pretty interesting in
>> light of prior threads, though. Many of those are relevant to bikes.
>>
>> I wouldn't dismiss this guy as a crank, although I think he could have
>> a better spokesperson than Dan Rather.
>
>
> who gives a damn about dan rather? /i/ posted it as a follow-up to carl
> fogel's story on the same subject. and it illustrates what happens when
> the uninformed and hysterical start bleating about subjects on which
> they have no knowledge, but an easily exploitable fear of what to them
> is the unknown.

Given that no commercial aircraft approaching this size has been built
with a composite fuselage, it is an "unknown" to everyone.

> as a further example, here in the bay area, we're building a new span to
> the bay bridge. one day during the most visible new construction phase,
> there was a sensational headline picked up in the local media about
> defective welds and "massive cover-up" on behalf of the contractor.
> source? disgruntled former worker that had been fired and who wanted to
> stir up trouble - and who knew enough technical jargon to cook up a
> credible sounding story to the uninitiated.

Er, it was 15 welders, actually.

It was recognized even at the time the story broke that welders aren't
qualified to judge weld quality.

Caltrans had a major discovery of fraud covering up bad welds 10 years
earlier.

> and the media, being
> uninitiated, takes his story as sufficiently sensational to run with.
> the story died out after the "source"'s credentials and history were
> exposed, and after the contractors had wasted a bunch of time and money
> going back through their testing certification, but it's a "story" that
> would never have come to light if the media had done even basic
> background checking or bothered to speak with other engineers first.

Actually, it was the FBI who got the ball rolling. Their investigation
had been going on for some months before the story broke.

A neighbor of mine is an FBI agent investigating similar issues with the
"Big Dig" -- these things happen all the time and often turn up serious
fraud.

> and what do we have here? an identically disgruntled former employee
> with a mouthful of "credible" sounding doomsday warnings approaching an
> ignorant but sensation-seeking media looking to stir up trouble.

A 47-year Boeing employee, with serious credentials, apparently not
alone with his concerns.

He specifically mentions the difference in yield strains between
aluminum and CF composites and the effect that may have on shock
absorption. He specifically uses the word "brittle".

> and
> apparently succeeding if the ridiculous bleating on r.b.t is a gauge.

Nothing in common, actually. The Boeing engineer's primary charge is
that the testing protocols are insufficient for the new technology.

> still, as part of the old saying goes, "you can fool some people all of
> the time", and thus it is proved.

Nothing is "proved". You don't even have the facts straight.

Date: 22 Sep 2007 13:24:36
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/20/1352208.shtml
>>>>
>>>> fortunately, the slashdot crowd is a little more analytical.
>>>>
>>>> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=303589&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20680345#20680839
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Most of the slashdot comments were pretty random, not really
>>> addressing the concerns of the Dan Rather story.
>>>
>>>
>>> For anyone interested in the actual letter that Vincent Weldon
>>> (ex-Boeing employee) sent to the FAA, it is here:
>>>
>>> <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/09/17/2003889769.pdf>
>>>
>>> I found it to be a rather detailed and interesting description of the
>>> issues. Most of the concerns discussed (g-force transmission to
>>> passengers, lightning strikes, toxic combustion byproducts) have
>>> little relevance to the use of CF in bikes. His description of the
>>> fundamental characteristics of composites are pretty interesting in
>>> light of prior threads, though. Many of those are relevant to bikes.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't dismiss this guy as a crank, although I think he could
>>> have a better spokesperson than Dan Rather.
>>
>>
>> who gives a damn about dan rather? /i/ posted it as a follow-up to
>> carl fogel's story on the same subject. and it illustrates what
>> happens when the uninformed and hysterical start bleating about
>> subjects on which they have no knowledge, but an easily exploitable
>> fear of what to them is the unknown.
>
> Given that no commercial aircraft approaching this size has been built
> with a composite fuselage, it is an "unknown" to everyone.

typical peter cole. if we exclude your use of the word "commercial",
your argument is utter bullshit as it's been used in /mil/ a/c for
nearly 30 years. so that leaves the implication that mil apps are
somehow not representative, which is also utter bullshit.

>
>
>> as a further example, here in the bay area, we're building a new span
>> to the bay bridge. one day during the most visible new construction
>> phase, there was a sensational headline picked up in the local media
>> about defective welds and "massive cover-up" on behalf of the
>> contractor. source? disgruntled former worker that had been fired and
>> who wanted to stir up trouble - and who knew enough technical jargon
>> to cook up a credible sounding story to the uninitiated.
>
> Er, it was 15 welders, actually.

read the story and get the facts straight.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/04/17/BAG43CAE6F1.DTL&feed=rss.news

>
> It was recognized even at the time the story broke that welders aren't
> qualified to judge weld quality.

they're not.

>
> Caltrans had a major discovery of fraud covering up bad welds 10 years
> earlier.

so the implication is that somehow it automatically happened here?
bullshitter.

>
>
>> and the media, being uninitiated, takes his story as sufficiently
>> sensational to run with. the story died out after the "source"'s
>> credentials and history were exposed, and after the contractors had
>> wasted a bunch of time and money going back through their testing
>> certification, but it's a "story" that would never have come to light
>> if the media had done even basic background checking or bothered to
>> speak with other engineers first.
>
> Actually, it was the FBI who got the ball rolling. Their investigation
> had been going on for some months before the story broke.

financial graft is endemic. that's not nothing to do with disgruntled
fired ex-employees looking to make false accusations by way of retribution.

>
> A neighbor of mine is an FBI agent investigating similar issues with the
> "Big Dig" -- these things happen all the time and often turn up serious
> fraud.

financial fraud is not engineering fraud.

>
>> and what do we have here? an identically disgruntled former employee
>> with a mouthful of "credible" sounding doomsday warnings approaching
>> an ignorant but sensation-seeking media looking to stir up trouble.
>
> A 47-year Boeing employee, with serious credentials, apparently not
> alone with his concerns.

so dan rather adds credibility????

he was fired. and not for engineering disagreement. but he sure did
want to stir up trouble as retribution.

>
> He specifically mentions the difference in yield strains between
> aluminum and CF composites and the effect that may have on shock
> absorption. He specifically uses the word "brittle".

that's exactly the kind of low-level bullshit argument that is
guaranteed to stir up fear among the ignorati. if cfrp has three times
the elastic limit, better specific modulus and superior fatigue, it's a
better material on three counts. the "brittle" argument is bullshit if
you don't understand the failure mode - cfrp does not shatter like
glass. what? peter cole bullshit on something he doesn't know about?
surely that would never happen!

>
>
>> and apparently succeeding if the ridiculous bleating on r.b.t is a gauge.
>
> Nothing in common, actually. The Boeing engineer's primary charge is
> that the testing protocols are insufficient for the new technology.

the "new" 30 year old technology that's been used in mil aps that whole
time. and it's especially ironic given that planes were made of wood,
that natural composite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules
http://www.warbirdalley.com/mossie.htm
what? ignore facts? peter cole would never do that!

>
>> still, as part of the old saying goes, "you can fool some people all
>> of the time", and thus it is proved.
>
> Nothing is "proved". You don't even have the facts straight.

typical peter cole. cherry pick the points you want to argue and ignore
the others that make them a crock. you're a bullshitter.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 11:04:23
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:9YSdnUARXNyY52jbnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> if cfrp has three times the elastic limit,

It doesn't. Bleat about it all you want, it doesn't make it true.

Carbon fiber is not elastic. It is not plastic. It fails catastrophically
with little elongation at all (~1.5%).

In the linear part of the stress strain graph, carbon fiber and Al alloys
have the same practical range before yield (~0.4%).

Check your facts at www.matweb.com and stop propagating myths.

> better specific modulus and superior fatigue, it's a better material on
> three counts.

Only if you ignore the drawbacks of CF, which have been discussed to death
here already.

> the "brittle" argument is bullshit if you don't understand the failure
> mode - cfrp does not shatter like glass.

Wow. Someone who has even a modicum of scientific training can understand
that "brittle" is perfectly applicable to carbon fiber, because CF does not
substantially elongate either in the "elastic" nor "plastic" sense before
failure (~ 1.5%). However, someone who does not have scientific training,
nor the ability to understand physical properties (and instead can only
parrot pop science sayings), can get fixated on having a very narrow and
inadequate definition of brittle (according to beamboyworld, only glass can
be brittle).

> what? peter cole bullshit on something he doesn't know about? surely that
> would never happen!

Of course not. You, on the other hand, have the knck of doing it every
time...

>> Nothing is "proved". You don't even have the facts straight.
>
> typical peter cole. cherry pick the points you want to argue and ignore
> the others that make them a crock. you're a bullshitter.

No, it's been clear for years that you're the lying, ignorant fraud who
thought bluster and abuse can cover up your lack of knowledge. Your time is
over, beamboy.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 08:20:55
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:9YSdnUARXNyY52jbnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> if cfrp has three times the elastic limit,
>
> It doesn't. Bleat about it all you want, it doesn't make it true.
>
> Carbon fiber is not elastic.

er, yes it is moron. you don't understand what elasticity is.

> It is not plastic.

that bit is correct, but i doubt you understand why.

> It fails catastrophically
> with little elongation at all (~1.5%).

and most start to yield at a third of that! and the failure mode is
incremental and energetic.

>
> In the linear part of the stress strain graph, carbon fiber and Al alloys
> have the same practical range before yield (~0.4%).

er, 0.4% is the same as 1.5%??? because that's what you've just said
without understanding what you're talking about, you fucking moron.

>
> Check your facts at www.matweb.com and stop propagating myths.

er, maybe /you/ should do that. moron.

>
>> better specific modulus and superior fatigue, it's a better material on
>> three counts.
>
> Only if you ignore the drawbacks of CF, which have been discussed to death
> here already.

the "drawbacks"??? extreme fatigue resistance, superior strength to
weight and a progressive failure mode? what a moron!

>
>> the "brittle" argument is bullshit if you don't understand the failure
>> mode - cfrp does not shatter like glass.
>
> Wow. Someone who has even a modicum of scientific training can understand
> that "brittle" is perfectly applicable to carbon fiber, because CF does not
> substantially elongate either in the "elastic" nor "plastic" sense before
> failure (~ 1.5%).

geeze, you complete fucking moron!!! that 1.5% /is/ the elastic
elongation!!! and that's a good deal better then most structural metals.

> However, someone who does not have scientific training,
> nor the ability to understand physical properties (and instead can only
> parrot pop science sayings), can get fixated on having a very narrow and
> inadequate definition of brittle (according to beamboyworld, only glass can
> be brittle).

er, even when you figure out what elasticity is, you'll still be a
complete fucking moron.

>
>> what? peter cole bullshit on something he doesn't know about? surely that
>> would never happen!
>
> Of course not. You, on the other hand, have the knck of doing it every
> time...
>
>>> Nothing is "proved". You don't even have the facts straight.
>> typical peter cole. cherry pick the points you want to argue and ignore
>> the others that make them a crock. you're a bullshitter.
>
> No, it's been clear for years that you're the lying, ignorant fraud who
> thought bluster and abuse can cover up your lack of knowledge. Your time is
> over, beamboy.

the more you write, the more moronic you prove yourself to be.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:10:14
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:PZSdnegFspPBGWvbnZ2dnUVZ_ournZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> the more you write, the more moronic you prove yourself to be.

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 CLASSIFIED)

Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
everything - they're CLASSIFIED.

Okay?

Date: 23 Sep 2007 10:24:31
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:PZSdnegFspPBGWvbnZ2dnUVZ_ournZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> the more you write, the more moronic you prove yourself to be.
>
> 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 CLASSIFIED)
>
> Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
> everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
>
> Okay?
>
>

moron.

Date: 22 Sep 2007 18:41:12
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/20/1352208.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>> fortunately, the slashdot crowd is a little more analytical.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=303589&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20680345#20680839
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most of the slashdot comments were pretty random, not really
>>>> addressing the concerns of the Dan Rather story.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For anyone interested in the actual letter that Vincent Weldon
>>>> (ex-Boeing employee) sent to the FAA, it is here:
>>>>
>>>> <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/09/17/2003889769.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> I found it to be a rather detailed and interesting description of
>>>> the issues. Most of the concerns discussed (g-force transmission to
>>>> passengers, lightning strikes, toxic combustion byproducts) have
>>>> little relevance to the use of CF in bikes. His description of the
>>>> fundamental characteristics of composites are pretty interesting in
>>>> light of prior threads, though. Many of those are relevant to bikes.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't dismiss this guy as a crank, although I think he could
>>>> have a better spokesperson than Dan Rather.
>>>
>>>
>>> who gives a damn about dan rather? /i/ posted it as a follow-up to
>>> carl fogel's story on the same subject. and it illustrates what
>>> happens when the uninformed and hysterical start bleating about
>>> subjects on which they have no knowledge, but an easily exploitable
>>> fear of what to them is the unknown.
>>
>> Given that no commercial aircraft approaching this size has been built
>> with a composite fuselage, it is an "unknown" to everyone.
>
> typical peter cole. if we exclude your use of the word "commercial",

Why would we do that?

> your argument is utter bullshit

Whatever.

> as it's been used in /mil/ a/c for
> nearly 30 years.

Yeah, by the Boeing guy since '73.

> so that leaves the implication that mil apps are
> somehow not representative,

When the primary concern is crashworthiness, the issues are very different.

> which is also utter bullshit.

Whatever.

>>> as a further example, here in the bay area, we're building a new span
>>> to the bay bridge. one day during the most visible new construction
>>> phase, there was a sensational headline picked up in the local media
>>> about defective welds and "massive cover-up" on behalf of the
>>> contractor. source? disgruntled former worker that had been fired
>>> and who wanted to stir up trouble - and who knew enough technical
>>> jargon to cook up a credible sounding story to the uninitiated.
>>
>> Er, it was 15 welders, actually.
>
> read the story and get the facts straight.
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/04/17/BAG43CAE6F1.DTL&feed=rss.news

Why don't you read the story from the guys who broke it (& got an award
for it) instead of a couple of breezy columnists?

<http://www.newbaybridge.org/medianews/2005_04_06_oaktrib_fbi.html >

>> It was recognized even at the time the story broke that welders aren't
>> qualified to judge weld quality.
>
> they're not.

Yes, that's what I said.

>
>>
>> Caltrans had a major discovery of fraud covering up bad welds 10 years
>> earlier.
>
> so the implication is that somehow it automatically happened here?

No, just that it happens a lot.

> bullshitter.

Whatever.

>>> and the media, being uninitiated, takes his story as sufficiently
>>> sensational to run with. the story died out after the "source"'s
>>> credentials and history were exposed, and after the contractors had
>>> wasted a bunch of time and money going back through their testing
>>> certification, but it's a "story" that would never have come to light
>>> if the media had done even basic background checking or bothered to
>>> speak with other engineers first.
>>
>> Actually, it was the FBI who got the ball rolling. Their investigation
>> had been going on for some months before the story broke.
>
> financial graft is endemic. that's not nothing to do with disgruntled
> fired ex-employees looking to make false accusations by way of retribution.

Whatever, don't change the subject, it was the FBI investigation (in
February) which triggered the article (in April). Your media-conspiracy
theory is full of holes.

>> A neighbor of mine is an FBI agent investigating similar issues with
>> the "Big Dig" -- these things happen all the time and often turn up
>> serious fraud.
>
> financial fraud is not engineering fraud.

I guess you're similarly clueless about the Big Dig story.

>>> and what do we have here? an identically disgruntled former employee
>>> with a mouthful of "credible" sounding doomsday warnings approaching
>>> an ignorant but sensation-seeking media looking to stir up trouble.
>>
>> A 47-year Boeing employee, with serious credentials, apparently not
>> alone with his concerns.
>
> so dan rather adds credibility????

What does that have to do with anything?

> he was fired. and not for engineering disagreement. but he sure did
> want to stir up trouble as retribution.

He stirred up trouble expecting to be fired. He had little to lose from
firing because he was close to retirement (do the math).

>> He specifically mentions the difference in yield strains between
>> aluminum and CF composites and the effect that may have on shock
>> absorption. He specifically uses the word "brittle".

> that's exactly the kind of low-level bullshit argument that is
> guaranteed to stir up fear among the ignorati.

It's a term that's both accurate and easy to understand. You seem to be
the only one, expert or layman, who doesn't seem to grasp or accept it.

> if cfrp has three times
> the elastic limit, better specific modulus and superior fatigue, it's a
> better material on three counts.

Perhaps, but that doesn't describe impact tolerance.

> the "brittle" argument is bullshit if
> you don't understand the failure mode - cfrp does not shatter like
> glass.

No, it shatters like CFRP, which is different than fiberglass or
Kevlar-epoxy composites and certainly very different than aluminum.

> what? peter cole bullshit on something he doesn't know about?
> surely that would never happen!

You forget, it was the Boeing guy (and anyone else you care to consult)
who used the term.

>>> and apparently succeeding if the ridiculous bleating on r.b.t is a
>>> gauge.
>>
>> Nothing in common, actually. The Boeing engineer's primary charge is
>> that the testing protocols are insufficient for the new technology.
>
> the "new" 30 year old technology that's been used in mil aps that whole
> time. and it's especially ironic given that planes were made of wood,
> that natural composite.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules
> http://www.warbirdalley.com/mossie.htm

> what? ignore facts? peter cole would never do that!

What "facts"? The problem is safety, specifically crashworthiness. The
Boeing engineer argues that the new material in a fuselage application
requires more testing to qualify it. His opinion is that the design
would fail such tests.

>>> still, as part of the old saying goes, "you can fool some people all
>>> of the time", and thus it is proved.
>>
>> Nothing is "proved". You don't even have the facts straight.
>
> typical peter cole. cherry pick the points you want to argue and ignore
> the others that make them a crock.

I address every point you raise. You should return the courtesy -- but I
suppose that's an oxymoron.

you're a bullshitter.
Whatever.

Date: 22 Sep 2007 16:36:47
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
<snip usual wriggle and squirm >

>> the "brittle" argument is bullshit if you don't understand the failure
>> mode - cfrp does not shatter like glass.
>
> No, it shatters like CFRP, which is different than fiberglass or
> Kevlar-epoxy composites and certainly very different than aluminum.

it doesn't shatter. we've just seen a thread on that where a fork was
ripped through the head tube. it's evident from the fracture that
failure was gradual and energetic. but you wouldn't admit that since
you don't understand that lack of ductility doesn't mean lack of
toughness. unless there's some defect, cfrp fails just like wood -
piece by piece, and with significant energy absorption.

>
>
>> what? peter cole bullshit on something he doesn't know about? surely
>> that would never happen!
>
> You forget, it was the Boeing guy (and anyone else you care to consult)
> who used the term.

er, you mean the guy using emotive language designed to stir up
controversy. "brittle" to most lay persons means that something
shatters like glass. this is /not/ the case with this material.

>
>
>>>> and apparently succeeding if the ridiculous bleating on r.b.t is a
>>>> gauge.
>>>
>>> Nothing in common, actually. The Boeing engineer's primary charge is
>>> that the testing protocols are insufficient for the new technology.
>>
>> the "new" 30 year old technology that's been used in mil aps that
>> whole time. and it's especially ironic given that planes were made of
>> wood, that natural composite.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules
>> http://www.warbirdalley.com/mossie.htm
>
>> what? ignore facts? peter cole would never do that!
>
> What "facts"? The problem is safety, specifically crashworthiness.

ah, the peter cole ethereal undefined crap. just like "impact".

so how much "crashworthiness" does a plane need peter? nose in at
700kts? would that be reasonable?

undefined emotive sensationalism is so much crap. especially from a guy
that calls himself an "engineer".

> The
> Boeing engineer argues that the new material in a fuselage application
> requires more testing to qualify it. His opinion is that the design
> would fail such tests.

but boeing have tested to industry standards. what more do you want?
undefined "impact" testing?

>
>>>> still, as part of the old saying goes, "you can fool some people all
>>>> of the time", and thus it is proved.
>>>
>>> Nothing is "proved". You don't even have the facts straight.
>>
>> typical peter cole. cherry pick the points you want to argue and
>> ignore the others that make them a crock.
>
> I address every point you raise.

no you don't!!! what about the long and successful history of
composites in a/c over the decades. since the dawn of flight in fact.
you just routinely ignore anything inconvenient, then proceed as if
nothing is wrong. that's bullshit.

> You should return the courtesy -- but I
> suppose that's an oxymoron.

yeah, and the day you don't bullshit is the one i'm waiting for too.

>
>> you're a bullshitter.
> Whatever.

but you are.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 11:08:42
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
> <snip usual wriggle and squirm>

Whatever.

>
>>> the "brittle" argument is bullshit if you don't understand the
>>> failure mode - cfrp does not shatter like glass.
>>
>> No, it shatters like CFRP, which is different than fiberglass or
>> Kevlar-epoxy composites and certainly very different than aluminum.
>
> it doesn't shatter. we've just seen a thread on that where a fork was
> ripped through the head tube. it's evident from the fracture that
> failure was gradual and energetic. but you wouldn't admit that since
> you don't understand that lack of ductility doesn't mean lack of
> toughness. unless there's some defect, cfrp fails just like wood -
> piece by piece, and with significant energy absorption.

Brittle failure is a well known characteristic of CF composites. That
said, it is possible to design energy absorbent *structures* with CF
composites. Such structures usually rely on the tearing of fibers from
the composite rather than simple fiber tensile failure. I posted an
example of this in the Audi design for a tubular crash structure. The
example of the steerer tube tearing through the head tube is similar,
but not representative of a more typical failure (in bicycles) of a
tubular beam failing in bending.

In the case of CF composites, lack of ductility does mean lack of
toughness -- by definition. You continue to confuse force and energy.

>>> what? peter cole bullshit on something he doesn't know about? surely
>>> that would never happen!

Whatever.

>>
>> You forget, it was the Boeing guy (and anyone else you care to
>> consult) who used the term.
>
> er, you mean the guy using emotive language designed to stir up
> controversy. "brittle" to most lay persons means that something
> shatters like glass. this is /not/ the case with this material.

"Brittle" is a term commonly used to describe CF-epoxy composites by
experts in the field. Lack of "toughness" is another.

>>>>> and apparently succeeding if the ridiculous bleating on r.b.t is a
>>>>> gauge.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing in common, actually. The Boeing engineer's primary charge is
>>>> that the testing protocols are insufficient for the new technology.
>>>
>>> the "new" 30 year old technology that's been used in mil aps that
>>> whole time. and it's especially ironic given that planes were made
>>> of wood, that natural composite.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules
>>> http://www.warbirdalley.com/mossie.htm
>>
>>> what? ignore facts? peter cole would never do that!
>>
>> What "facts"? The problem is safety, specifically crashworthiness.
>
> ah, the peter cole ethereal undefined crap. just like "impact".
>
> so how much "crashworthiness" does a plane need peter? nose in at
> 700kts? would that be reasonable?

Boeing tested a fuselage section per existing FAA requirements and
claimed that those tests validated their computer models. The Boeing
employee claims that the tests, which were designed to certify metallic
fuselages, are not sufficient. I think he has a case.

> undefined emotive sensationalism is so much crap. especially from a guy
> that calls himself an "engineer".
>
>
>> The Boeing engineer argues that the new material in a fuselage
>> application requires more testing to qualify it. His opinion is that
>> the design would fail such tests.
>
> but boeing have tested to industry standards. what more do you want?
> undefined "impact" testing?

The Boeing engineer said he wanted a fully loaded, full fuselage section
at 30 fps. He would also like to see fire resistance added to the test.

>>>>> still, as part of the old saying goes, "you can fool some people
>>>>> all of the time", and thus it is proved.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing is "proved". You don't even have the facts straight.
>>>
>>> typical peter cole. cherry pick the points you want to argue and
>>> ignore the others that make them a crock.

You didn't (as usual) address the points I raised.

>>
>> I address every point you raise.
>
> no you don't!!! what about the long and successful history of
> composites in a/c over the decades. since the dawn of flight in fact.
> you just routinely ignore anything inconvenient, then proceed as if
> nothing is wrong.

Yeah, OK, wood was used first. I am aware of that, I've toured the
spruce goose, my dad was flown into London on a mosquito during the war.
I've worked on various boat hulls, wood plank, molded plywood, glassed
plywood, and plain glass. I'm very aware of the relative qualities.

The specific topic is crashworthiness of composite fuselages. This is a
new application.

> that's bullshit.

Whatever.

>> You should return the courtesy -- but I suppose that's an oxymoron.
>
> yeah, and the day you don't bullshit is the one i'm waiting for too.

Whatever.

>>> you're a bullshitter.
>> Whatever.
>
> but you are.

Whatever.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 08:43:24
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>> <snip usual wriggle and squirm>
>
> Whatever.
>
>>
>>>> the "brittle" argument is bullshit if you don't understand the
>>>> failure mode - cfrp does not shatter like glass.
>>>
>>> No, it shatters like CFRP, which is different than fiberglass or
>>> Kevlar-epoxy composites and certainly very different than aluminum.
>>
>> it doesn't shatter. we've just seen a thread on that where a fork was
>> ripped through the head tube. it's evident from the fracture that
>> failure was gradual and energetic. but you wouldn't admit that since
>> you don't understand that lack of ductility doesn't mean lack of
>> toughness. unless there's some defect, cfrp fails just like wood -
>> piece by piece, and with significant energy absorption.
>
> Brittle failure is a well known characteristic of CF composites.

what? that it shatters like glass??? bullshit.

> That
> said, it is possible to design energy absorbent *structures* with CF
> composites. Such structures usually rely on the tearing of fibers from
> the composite rather than simple fiber tensile failure. I posted an
> example of this in the Audi design for a tubular crash structure. The
> example of the steerer tube tearing through the head tube is similar,

which contradicts your earlier statement. which one do you want peter?
you can't have it both ways.

> but not representative of a more typical failure (in bicycles) of a
> tubular beam failing in bending.

bullshit. you have no experience with this material and have never
tried to make any cfrp bike componentry fail or you'd never be able to
make that statement. not without /knowing/ yourself to be a bullshitter
at any rate.

>
> In the case of CF composites, lack of ductility does mean lack of
> toughness -- by definition.

finally, the truth starts to dawn...

> You continue to confuse force and energy.

er, no. you're the one with the fundamental concept problem.

>
>>>> what? peter cole bullshit on something he doesn't know about?
>>>> surely that would never happen!
>
> Whatever.
>
>>>
>>> You forget, it was the Boeing guy (and anyone else you care to
>>> consult) who used the term.
>>
>> er, you mean the guy using emotive language designed to stir up
>> controversy. "brittle" to most lay persons means that something
>> shatters like glass. this is /not/ the case with this material.
>
> "Brittle" is a term commonly used to describe CF-epoxy composites by
> experts in the field.

er, "brittle" is a term used by self-proclaimed "engineers" that don't
know what they're talking about but want to stir up fear by implying
cfrp shatters like glass.

> Lack of "toughness" is another.

and that is bullshit. cfrp can be /extremely/ tough. see above for
misapplication of "fear".

>
>>>>>> and apparently succeeding if the ridiculous bleating on r.b.t is a
>>>>>> gauge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing in common, actually. The Boeing engineer's primary charge
>>>>> is that the testing protocols are insufficient for the new technology.
>>>>
>>>> the "new" 30 year old technology that's been used in mil aps that
>>>> whole time. and it's especially ironic given that planes were made
>>>> of wood, that natural composite.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules
>>>> http://www.warbirdalley.com/mossie.htm
>>>
>>>> what? ignore facts? peter cole would never do that!
>>>
>>> What "facts"? The problem is safety, specifically crashworthiness.
>>
>> ah, the peter cole ethereal undefined crap. just like "impact".
>>
>> so how much "crashworthiness" does a plane need peter? nose in at
>> 700kts? would that be reasonable?
>
> Boeing tested a fuselage section per existing FAA requirements and
> claimed that those tests validated their computer models. The Boeing
> employee claims that the tests, which were designed to certify metallic
> fuselages, are not sufficient. I think he has a case.

based on what? emotive fear-mongering non-comprehension of the
materials? from the guy that thinks cfrp shatters like glass??? from
the guy that doesn't understand the distinction between elasticity and
plasticity??? yeah, that's a /real/ sound basis for judgment!

>
>
>> undefined emotive sensationalism is so much crap. especially from a
>> guy that calls himself an "engineer".
>>
>>
>>> The Boeing engineer argues that the new material in a fuselage
>>> application requires more testing to qualify it. His opinion is that
>>> the design would fail such tests.
>>
>> but boeing have tested to industry standards. what more do you want?
>> undefined "impact" testing?
>
> The Boeing engineer said he wanted a fully loaded, full fuselage section
> at 30 fps. He would also like to see fire resistance added to the test.

why does cfrp have to withstand /more/ than metal???

and the fire resistance is bullshit - the plane is /full/ of toxic
combustibles, not least of which is fuel. if you can't exit the plane
in 90 seconds, you're pork crackling. cfrp won't make any damned
difference to that.

>
>
>>>>>> still, as part of the old saying goes, "you can fool some people
>>>>>> all of the time", and thus it is proved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing is "proved". You don't even have the facts straight.
>>>>
>>>> typical peter cole. cherry pick the points you want to argue and
>>>> ignore the others that make them a crock.
>
> You didn't (as usual) address the points I raised.

er, inability to read or understand basic science on your part is /not/
failure to address on mine.

>
>>>
>>> I address every point you raise.
>>
>> no you don't!!! what about the long and successful history of
>> composites in a/c over the decades. since the dawn of flight in fact.
>> you just routinely ignore anything inconvenient, then proceed as if
>> nothing is wrong.
>
> Yeah, OK, wood was used first. I am aware of that, I've toured the
> spruce goose, my dad was flown into London on a mosquito during the war.
> I've worked on various boat hulls, wood plank, molded plywood, glassed
> plywood, and plain glass. I'm very aware of the relative qualities.
>
> The specific topic is crashworthiness of composite fuselages. This is a
> new application.

it's not "new". and it's not inferior - your implication.

>
>
>> that's bullshit.
>
> Whatever.
>
>
>>> You should return the courtesy -- but I suppose that's an oxymoron.
>>
>> yeah, and the day you don't bullshit is the one i'm waiting for too.
>
> Whatever.
>
>>>> you're a bullshitter.
>>> Whatever.
>>
>> but you are.
>
> Whatever.

get with the program. learn about this stuff /before/ you run about
like chicken little. buy a carbon fork [nashbar, $99, bike swap, much
less] and try to destroy it. go to an r/c model plane store and buy
some cfrp forms and mess about with them. break them. and please
please please /try/ to get the basic science right - you have no basis
for criticism if your fundamentals are wrong.

Date: 24 Sep 2007 06:53:31
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:

>> Brittle failure is a well known characteristic of CF composites.
>
> what? that it shatters like glass??? bullshit.
>
>
>> That said, it is possible to design energy absorbent *structures* with
>> CF composites. Such structures usually rely on the tearing of fibers
>> from the composite rather than simple fiber tensile failure. I posted
>> an example of this in the Audi design for a tubular crash structure.
>> The example of the steerer tube tearing through the head tube is similar,
>
> which contradicts your earlier statement. which one do you want peter?
> you can't have it both ways.

It contradicts nothing I've said.

<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003849110_boeingtest23.html >

"Ed Fasanella, a senior NASA engineer and crash expert, worked on the
two earlier 737 drop tests and is involved with extensive crash testing
at NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia."

"Since it is composite, it's harder to analyze," Fasanella said, "You
almost have to do a physical test."

While metal bends and crumples rather than breaking under high loads, he
said, carbon-fiber plastic composites are typically "brittle."

>> The specific topic is crashworthiness of composite fuselages. This is
>> a new application.
>
> it's not "new". and it's not inferior - your implication.

From the FAA
<http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2007-06-11-E7-11153 >

"The 787 fuselage will be fabricated with carbon fiber reinforced
plastic (CFRP) semimonocoque construction, consisting of skins with
cocured longitudinal stringers and mechanically fastened
circumferential frames. This is a novel and unusual design feature for a
large transport category airplane certificated under 14 CFR part 25.
Structure fabricated from CFRP may behave differently than metallic
structure because of differences in material ductility, stiffness,
failure modes, and energy absorption characteristics. Therefore, impact
response characteristics of the 787 must be evaluated to ensure that its
survivable crashworthiness characteristics provide approximately the
same level of safety as those of a similarly sized airplane fabricated
from traditionally used metallic materials."

> and please
> please please /try/ to get the basic science right - you have no basis
> for criticism if your fundamentals are wrong.

NASA Langley did a (single) drop test of a all-composite fuselage:

<http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/951168 >

"As part of NASA's composite structures crash dynamics research, a
general aviation aircraft with composite wing, fuselage and empennage
(but with metal subfloor structure) was crash tested at the NASA Langley
Research Center Impact Dynamics Research Facility. The test was
conducted to determine composite aircraft structural behavior for crash
loading conditions and to provide a baseline for a similar aircraft test
with a modified subfloor. Structural integrity and cabin volume were
maintained. Lumbar loads for dummy occupants in energy absorbing seats
were substantially lower than those in standard aircraft seats; however,
loads in the standard seats were much higher than those recorded under
similar conditions for an all-metallic aircraft"

The bottom line is that a composite fuselage will have less energy
absorption in a crash than a similar metal one. This can be mediated
with special energy absorbent structures. The Boeing engineer feels that
certification is being rushed on the 787. The current process is to
perform a single drop test to validate computer models which will be
used to predict overall crash dynamics. He feels this is not
conservative enough given the incomplete understanding of the behavior
of composites in these circumstances.

Date: 24 Sep 2007 07:49:58
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

An interesting paper on the challenges presented in designing a
crashworthy CF composite aircraft:

<http://nlr.nl/smartsite.dws?id=4366 >

A couple of quotes:

"Traditionally, fuselages of fixed-wing transport aircraft
are made mostly of aluminium, a material with
considerable capacity for plastic deformation, hence,
an inherent capability to absorb energy in crash
situations. Since the last two decades, composite
materials are used more extensively to build aircraft
structures, although in civil transport aircraft, applications are
limited mainly to the empennage, the
outer wing and secondary structures. However,
application of composite materials to aircraft fuselages
becomes feasible rapidly, and the crashworthiness
aspect related to composite structures has become a
serious issue. The composites used for aerospace
structures are generally brittle materials with hardly
any capacity for plastic deformation, so
crashworthiness is no longer a materials aspect, but
requires a combined materials/structures/fabrication approach."

"Metals absorb energy by plastic deformation. For
metal structures, this applies to all failure modes:
tension, compression, bending, etc. Composites
absorb energy mainly by fiber breakage. It is important
to break a fiber many times over, rather than once
only. For composite structures, this seems possible only in a
compression mode without buckling, i.e., in a
stabilized configuration. Failure in tension or bending
usually doesn't lead to multiple fiber fractures.
Helicopter technology has indicated that carbon-fibers
are best for energy absorption, and aramid fibers are
best to provide stability and integrity of a crushing
structure. Solutions are therefore sought in mixed
laminates of both fiber types, either as a laminate with
different material plies or as hybrid fabrics."

It is also interesting to note in light of the Boeing flap, that the
drop test documented here produced results that didn't conform to the
model (for the overall structure), supporting the argument that full
scale drop tests may be the wisest way to go until the engineering is
better understood.

The important point contained in this document, from a bicycle component
point of view, is that CF composites are typically very bad at absorbing
energy, with the contrary sounding reality that CF composite structures
with very good energy absorbency can be designed. Unfortunately, bicycle
components are not made that way, and consequently retain the brittle
characteristics of the base material.

Energy absorbency in the form of gross crashes is probably not nearly as
important as cumulative low impact damage in bicycle components and the
ability to detect it, but it's still a consideration.

Date: 24 Sep 2007 06:10:05
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Peter Cole wrote:
> An interesting paper on the challenges presented in designing a
> crashworthy CF composite aircraft:
>
> <http://nlr.nl/smartsite.dws?id=4366>
>
> A couple of quotes:
>
> "Traditionally, fuselages of fixed-wing transport aircraft
> are made mostly of aluminium, a material with
> considerable capacity for plastic deformation, hence,
> an inherent capability to absorb energy in crash
> situations. Since the last two decades, composite
> materials are used more extensively to build aircraft
> structures, although in civil transport aircraft, applications are
> limited mainly to the empennage, the
> outer wing and secondary structures. However,
> application of composite materials to aircraft fuselages
> becomes feasible rapidly, and the crashworthiness
> aspect related to composite structures has become a
> serious issue. The composites used for aerospace
> structures are generally brittle materials with hardly
> any capacity for plastic deformation, so
> crashworthiness is no longer a materials aspect, but
> requires a combined materials/structures/fabrication approach."

that's a fundamental misunderstanding. cfrp absorbs substantial energy
as it breaks - it's extremely tough, remember?

>
> "Metals absorb energy by plastic deformation. For
> metal structures, this applies to all failure modes:
> tension, compression, bending, etc. Composites
> absorb energy mainly by fiber breakage. It is important
> to break a fiber many times over, rather than once
> only. For composite structures, this seems possible only in a
> compression mode without buckling, i.e., in a
> stabilized configuration. Failure in tension or bending
> usually doesn't lead to multiple fiber fractures.
> Helicopter technology has indicated that carbon-fibers
> are best for energy absorption, and aramid fibers are
> best to provide stability and integrity of a crushing
> structure. Solutions are therefore sought in mixed
> laminates of both fiber types, either as a laminate with
> different material plies or as hybrid fabrics."

and?

>
> It is also interesting to note in light of the Boeing flap, that the
> drop test documented here produced results that didn't conform to the
> model (for the overall structure), supporting the argument that full
> scale drop tests may be the wisest way to go until the engineering is
> better understood.
>
> The important point contained in this document, from a bicycle component
> point of view, is that CF composites are typically very bad at absorbing
> energy,

absolutely incorrect. they absorb substantial energy - they just do it
differently!

> with the contrary sounding reality that CF composite structures
> with very good energy absorbency can be designed.

how inconvenient to everything you've just said!

> Unfortunately, bicycle
> components are not made that way, and consequently retain the brittle
> characteristics of the base material.

says who??? that's a massive presumption, and a completely wrong one if
the torn head tube example is anything to go by.

>
> Energy absorbency in the form of gross crashes is probably not nearly as
> important as cumulative low impact damage in bicycle components and the
> ability to detect it, but it's still a consideration.

what is "impact"??? a 0.1ms^-1 collision with a dead chicken? or a
100ms^-1 collision with a tungsten spike of 60 degree cone tip angle,
0.001mm tip radius and connected to a 2,000kg pendulum? unless you
define "impact", it means _nothing_.

as for "probably" being damaged by "low impact", that's absolutely
contradicted by excellent fatigue characteristics. reaching to the
ethereal "unknown" scare factor is just chicken little trying to be
afraid and wanting to tell everybody else to be the same.

why don't you do the experiments i suggested?

Date: 24 Sep 2007 11:58:42
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:Go2dncyAY9azKmrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> that's a fundamental misunderstanding. cfrp absorbs substantial energy as
> it breaks - it's extremely tough, remember?

Says the slashdot-as-technical-reference idiot. Now you say "substantial"
without even knowing what it means - quantify it, beamboy. Let's see that
"sharp analytical mind" at work.
>
> and?

And you're an idiot.

>> The important point contained in this document, from a bicycle component
>> point of view, is that CF composites are typically very bad at absorbing
>> energy,
>
> absolutely incorrect. they absorb substantial energy - they just do it
> differently!

Absolutely idiotic. Define "substantial", beamboy, and just how do they "do
it differently"?

>> Unfortunately, bicycle components are not made that way, and consequently
>> retain the brittle characteristics of the base material.
>
> says who??? that's a massive presumption, and a completely wrong one if
> the torn head tube example is anything to go by.

Based on your "expert" analysis? Of low-resolution descriptions?

Wow.

>> Energy absorbency in the form of gross crashes is probably not nearly as
>> important as cumulative low impact damage in bicycle components and the
>> ability to detect it, but it's still a consideration.
>
> what is "impact"??? a 0.1ms^-1 collision with a dead chicken? or a
> 100ms^-1 collision with a tungsten spike of 60 degree cone tip angle,
> 0.001mm tip radius and connected to a 2,000kg pendulum? unless you define
> "impact", it means _nothing_.

Impact is impact, dead chicken or "tungsten spike". Impact is defined in
terms of energy when used in the context of composites. Google the
different impact energies for different types of composites where research
has been extensively conducted.

You know how to use Google, right? While you're at it, define "substantial"
energy absorption, and the way CF absorb energy "differently".

> as for "probably" being damaged by "low impact", that's absolutely
> contradicted by excellent fatigue characteristics.

You are such an ignorant, fraudulent dick. Fatigue characteristics have
ABSOLUTELY NO RELATION TO LOW VELOCITY IMPACT DAMAGE TOLERANCE. I really
don't know why you insist on making yourself a complete tool about this, but
you really need to find out about composites before you blab about it.

And no, we're not going to do the work for you.

> reaching to the ethereal "unknown" scare factor is just chicken little
> trying to be afraid and wanting to tell everybody else to be the same.

And stating the imbecilic statement above is just choosing to be dumb for
the rest of your life.
>
> why don't you do the experiments i suggested?

Why don't you go to "materreials skool" and learn about it, beamboy?

Lying fucktard.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 20:14:16
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:Go2dncyAY9azKmrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> that's a fundamental misunderstanding. cfrp absorbs substantial energy as
>> it breaks - it's extremely tough, remember?
>
> Says the slashdot-as-technical-reference idiot. Now you say "substantial"
> without even knowing what it means - quantify it, beamboy. Let's see that
> "sharp analytical mind" at work.
>> and?
>
> And you're an idiot.
>
>>> The important point contained in this document, from a bicycle component
>>> point of view, is that CF composites are typically very bad at absorbing
>>> energy,
>> absolutely incorrect. they absorb substantial energy - they just do it
>> differently!
>
> Absolutely idiotic. Define "substantial", beamboy, and just how do they "do
> it differently"?
>
>>> Unfortunately, bicycle components are not made that way, and consequently
>>> retain the brittle characteristics of the base material.
>> says who??? that's a massive presumption, and a completely wrong one if
>> the torn head tube example is anything to go by.
>
> Based on your "expert" analysis? Of low-resolution descriptions?
>
> Wow.
>
>>> Energy absorbency in the form of gross crashes is probably not nearly as
>>> important as cumulative low impact damage in bicycle components and the
>>> ability to detect it, but it's still a consideration.
>> what is "impact"??? a 0.1ms^-1 collision with a dead chicken? or a
>> 100ms^-1 collision with a tungsten spike of 60 degree cone tip angle,
>> 0.001mm tip radius and connected to a 2,000kg pendulum? unless you define
>> "impact", it means _nothing_.
>
> Impact is impact, dead chicken or "tungsten spike". Impact is defined in
> terms of energy when used in the context of composites. Google the
> different impact energies for different types of composites where research
> has been extensively conducted.
>
> You know how to use Google, right? While you're at it, define "substantial"
> energy absorption, and the way CF absorb energy "differently".
>
>> as for "probably" being damaged by "low impact", that's absolutely
>> contradicted by excellent fatigue characteristics.
>
> You are such an ignorant, fraudulent dick. Fatigue characteristics have
> ABSOLUTELY NO RELATION TO LOW VELOCITY IMPACT DAMAGE TOLERANCE. I really
> don't know why you insist on making yourself a complete tool about this, but
> you really need to find out about composites before you blab about it.
>
> And no, we're not going to do the work for you.
>
>> reaching to the ethereal "unknown" scare factor is just chicken little
>> trying to be afraid and wanting to tell everybody else to be the same.
>
> And stating the imbecilic statement above is just choosing to be dumb for
> the rest of your life.
>> why don't you do the experiments i suggested?
>
> Why don't you go to "materreials skool" and learn about it, beamboy?
>
> Lying fucktard.
>
>
wow, you're a moron! why do you take issue with what i say when
everything you write evidences not only that you don't understand the
subject, but that you have to resort to mis-statement and denial of fact
to be able to take a contrary position? but that's a rhetorical
question, moron.

Date: 24 Sep 2007 10:49:23
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> An interesting paper on the challenges presented in designing a
>> crashworthy CF composite aircraft:
>>
>> <http://nlr.nl/smartsite.dws?id=4366>
>>
>> A couple of quotes:
>>
>> "The composites used for aerospace
>> structures are generally brittle materials with hardly
>> any capacity for plastic deformation, so
>> crashworthiness is no longer a materials aspect, but
>> requires a combined materials/structures/fabrication approach."
>
> that's a fundamental misunderstanding. cfrp absorbs substantial energy
> as it breaks

You'll have to take that up with the scientists -- all of them.

> - it's extremely tough, remember?

No, it isn't. That's the whole point.

Date: 24 Sep 2007 22:18:15
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> An interesting paper on the challenges presented in designing a
>>> crashworthy CF composite aircraft:
>>>
>>> <http://nlr.nl/smartsite.dws?id=4366>
>>>
>>> A couple of quotes:
>>>
>>> "The composites used for aerospace
>>> structures are generally brittle materials with hardly
>>> any capacity for plastic deformation, so
>>> crashworthiness is no longer a materials aspect, but
>>> requires a combined materials/structures/fabrication approach."
>>
>> that's a fundamental misunderstanding. cfrp absorbs substantial
>> energy as it breaks
>
> You'll have to take that up with the scientists -- all of them.

fortunately, we won't have to take it up with the "engineers" - they'll
all be doing their chicken little thing and bleating that cfrp shatters
like glass.

>
>> - it's extremely tough, remember?
>
> No, it isn't. That's the whole point.

er, who was it admitting /what/ about the energy absorption of cfrp used
in f1 cars??? oh, it was /you/!!!

Date: 25 Sep 2007 09:55:29
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> An interesting paper on the challenges presented in designing a
>>>> crashworthy CF composite aircraft:
>>>>
>>>> <http://nlr.nl/smartsite.dws?id=4366>
>>>>
>>>> A couple of quotes:
>>>>
>>>> "The composites used for aerospace
>>>> structures are generally brittle materials with hardly
>>>> any capacity for plastic deformation, so
>>>> crashworthiness is no longer a materials aspect, but
>>>> requires a combined materials/structures/fabrication approach."
>>>
>>> that's a fundamental misunderstanding. cfrp absorbs substantial
>>> energy as it breaks
>>
>> You'll have to take that up with the scientists -- all of them.
>
> fortunately, we won't have to take it up with the "engineers" - they'll
> all be doing their chicken little thing and bleating that cfrp shatters
> like glass.

Whatever.

>
>
>>
>>> - it's extremely tough, remember?
>>
>> No, it isn't. That's the whole point.
>
> er, who was it admitting /what/ about the energy absorption of cfrp used
> in f1 cars??? oh, it was /you/!!!

As I've posted several times (with cites), it is possible to create
energy absorbent structures with composites, but that doesn't mean the
material is inherently energy absorbent, quite the contrary in the case
of CF.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 20:11:09
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> An interesting paper on the challenges presented in designing a
>>>>> crashworthy CF composite aircraft:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://nlr.nl/smartsite.dws?id=4366>
>>>>>
>>>>> A couple of quotes:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The composites used for aerospace
>>>>> structures are generally brittle materials with hardly
>>>>> any capacity for plastic deformation, so
>>>>> crashworthiness is no longer a materials aspect, but
>>>>> requires a combined materials/structures/fabrication approach."
>>>>
>>>> that's a fundamental misunderstanding. cfrp absorbs substantial
>>>> energy as it breaks
>>>
>>> You'll have to take that up with the scientists -- all of them.
>>
>> fortunately, we won't have to take it up with the "engineers" -
>> they'll all be doing their chicken little thing and bleating that cfrp
>> shatters like glass.
>
> Whatever.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> - it's extremely tough, remember?
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. That's the whole point.
>>
>> er, who was it admitting /what/ about the energy absorption of cfrp
>> used in f1 cars??? oh, it was /you/!!!
>
> As I've posted several times (with cites), it is possible to create
> energy absorbent structures with composites, but that doesn't mean the
> material is inherently energy absorbent, quite the contrary in the case
> of CF.

typical peter cole b.s. you're just trying to twist facts to suit your
[incorrectly] entrenched position.

oh, and have you done those experiments i asked of you yet? what were
your results?

Date: 23 Sep 2007 09:09:58
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

jim beam wrote:
<snip >
> you have no basis
> for criticism if your fundamentals are wrong.

make that "when", not "if".

Date: 21 Sep 2007 19:06:19
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Date: 21 Sep 2007 23:23:00
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:1oKdnWYLuqcB5WnbnZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> jim beam wrote:
>> http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/20/1352208.shtml
>>
>> fortunately, the slashdot crowd is a little more analytical.
>>
>> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=303589&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20680345#20680839
>
> repost: not showing up on google...

Who cares, it's still mickey mouse, just like your "analyses" and
"experiments"....

Date: 21 Sep 2007 20:33:54
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:1oKdnWYLuqcB5WnbnZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/20/1352208.shtml
>>>
>>> fortunately, the slashdot crowd is a little more analytical.
>>>
>>> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=303589&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20680345#20680839
>> repost: not showing up on google...
>
> Who cares,

you seem to care a great deal!!! moron.

> it's still mickey mouse, just like your "analyses" and
> "experiments"....

yeah, science is such a drag, accuracy so inconvenient. fucking moron.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 11:08:58
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:y8mdnURR0_q-EGnbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:1oKdnWYLuqcB5WnbnZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/20/1352208.shtml
>>>>
>>>> fortunately, the slashdot crowd is a little more analytical.
>>>>
>>>> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=303589&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20680345#20680839
>>> repost: not showing up on google...
>>
>> Who cares,
>
> you seem to care a great deal!!! moron.

Really? I didn't even know about the slashdot website before you posted it,
and then I saw that it looks like it's populated by 16 year olds posting as
"engineers"...

> yeah, science is such a drag, accuracy so inconvenient. fucking moron.

The website is still mickey mouse, just like all your "analyses" and
"experiments"....

Date: 23 Sep 2007 08:45:39
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:y8mdnURR0_q-EGnbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1oKdnWYLuqcB5WnbnZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/20/1352208.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>> fortunately, the slashdot crowd is a little more analytical.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=303589&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20680345#20680839
>>>> repost: not showing up on google...
>>> Who cares,
>> you seem to care a great deal!!! moron.
>
> Really? I didn't even know about the slashdot website before you posted it,
> and then I saw that it looks like it's populated by 16 year olds posting as
> "engineers"...
>
> > yeah, science is such a drag, accuracy so inconvenient. fucking moron.
>
> The website is still mickey mouse, just like all your "analyses" and
> "experiments"....

says the guy that has no clue what he's talking about - because he's too
much of a fucking MORON.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:09:13
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:BMGdnYl2Zs6-F2vbnZ2dnUVZ_uvinZ2d@speakeasy.net...

> says the guy that has no clue what he's talking about - because he's too
> much of a fucking MORON.

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 CLASSIFIED)

Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
everything - they're CLASSIFIED.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 10:24:12
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:BMGdnYl2Zs6-F2vbnZ2dnUVZ_uvinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>> says the guy that has no clue what he's talking about - because he's too
>> much of a fucking MORON.
>
> 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 CLASSIFIED)
>
> Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
> everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
>
>
you're repeating the repetition of your repetition, moron. take your
meds, then lie down while the kind gentlemen carry you back your cell.

Date: 24 Sep 2007 11:49:36
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:F-6dnU_25u2gPGvbnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:BMGdnYl2Zs6-F2vbnZ2dnUVZ_uvinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>> says the guy that has no clue what he's talking about - because he's too
>>> much of a fucking MORON.
>>
>> 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 CLASSIFIED)
>>
>> Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
>> everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
>>
>>
> you're repeating the repetition of your repetition, moron. take your
> meds, then lie down while the kind gentlemen carry you back your cell.

"repeating the repetition of your repetition" - can I use this, beamboy?

Date: 21 Sep 2007 10:35:26
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:99GdnUE-Y_dPVG7bnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/20/1352208.shtml
>
> fortunately, the slashdot crowd is a little more analytical.
>
> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=303589&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20680345#20680839

The subject title of your post is so appropriate.

It's not surprising that you think a non-peer reviewed website, run by folks
with names such as CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and full of anonymous
posters with no credentials, bleating on about topics with no references nor
publications cited, is "a little more analytical"?

Could it be that you only believe this to be so because it happens to
support your misinformed and misguided thinking on CFRP? That's a
rhetorical question, by the way.

Every post you make exposes the fraudulent nature of your "metallurgist"
background, from "materials skool" more than 30 years ago.

Date: 21 Sep 2007 18:28:23
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:99GdnUE-Y_dPVG7bnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/20/1352208.shtml
>>
>> fortunately, the slashdot crowd is a little more analytical.
>>
>> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=303589&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20680345#20680839
>
> The subject title of your post is so appropriate.
>
> It's not surprising that you think a non-peer reviewed website, run by folks
> with names such as CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and full of anonymous
> posters with no credentials, bleating on about topics with no references nor
> publications cited, is "a little more analytical"?

er, actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron. in
much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!

>
> Could it be that you only believe this to be so because it happens to
> support your misinformed and misguided thinking on CFRP? That's a
> rhetorical question, by the way.
>
> Every post you make exposes the fraudulent nature of your "metallurgist"
> background, from "materials skool" more than 30 years ago.
>
>

all this from a guy that posts moronic crap like "modulus is strength to
weight".

Date: 22 Sep 2007 10:43:49
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

jim beam wrote:

> actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron. in
> much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!

You say that like it's a good thing.

Date: 22 Sep 2007 07:48:08
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron. in
>> much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!
>
> You say that like it's a good thing.

yes indeed. because it is.

Date: 22 Sep 2007 12:10:30
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron. in
>>> much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!
>>
>> You say that like it's a good thing.
>
> yes indeed. because it is.

Engineers are credible now?

Date: 22 Sep 2007 17:28:39
From: Luke
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

In article <cZadnVqQvZXoo2jbnZ2dnUVZ_uDinZ2d@comcast.com >, Peter Cole
<peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote:

> jim beam wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
> >> jim beam wrote:
> >>
> >>> actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron. in
> >>> much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!
> >>
> >> You say that like it's a good thing.
> >
> > yes indeed. because it is.
>
> Engineers are credible now?

LOL! Gotcha

Date: 22 Sep 2007 14:08:56
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

In article
<cZadnVqQvZXoo2jbnZ2dnUVZ_uDinZ2d@comcast.com >,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote:

> jim beam wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
> >> jim beam wrote:
> >>
> >>> actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron. in
> >>> much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!
> >>
> >> You say that like it's a good thing.
> >
> > yes indeed. because it is.
>
> Engineers are credible now?

Splat! He walked into that one.

--
Michael Press

Date: 22 Sep 2007 09:18:34
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron. in
>>>> much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!
>>>
>>> You say that like it's a good thing.
>>
>> yes indeed. because it is.
>
> Engineers are credible now?

real ones, yes. so-called "engineers" that don't know the difference
between elasticity and plasticity clearly are not. especially when they
bullshit to try and cover up their ignorance.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 12:48:41
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:RfGdnY2bW_XH3WjbnZ2dnUVZ_oPinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> real ones, yes. so-called "engineers" that don't know the difference
> between elasticity and plasticity clearly are not. especially when they
> bullshit to try and cover up their ignorance.

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

Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
everything - they're CLASSIFIED.

Okay?

Date: 23 Sep 2007 09:58:55
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:RfGdnY2bW_XH3WjbnZ2dnUVZ_oPinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> real ones, yes. so-called "engineers" that don't know the difference
>> between elasticity and plasticity clearly are not. especially when they
>> bullshit to try and cover up their ignorance.
>
> 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
>
> Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
> everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
>
> Okay?
>
>
you're repeating your repetition, moron. take your meds. seriously.

Date: 21 Sep 2007 23:26:04
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:Gc6dnUION8kq8mnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> The subject title of your post is so appropriate.
>>
>> It's not surprising that you think a non-peer reviewed website, run by
>> folks with names such as CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and full of
>> anonymous posters with no credentials, bleating on about topics with no
>> references nor publications cited, is "a little more analytical"?
>
> er, actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron. in
> much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!

Great, so says CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and yourself, of course. You
wouldn't have any proof of their credentials, would you?

Lying fucktard.

>> Every post you make exposes the fraudulent nature of your "metallurgist"
>> background, from "materials skool" more than 30 years ago.

> all this from a guy that posts moronic crap like "modulus is strength to
> weight".

As stated before, every post you make exposes the fraudulent nature of your
"metallurgist"
background, from "materials skool" more than 30 years ago.

Fraud.

Date: 22 Sep 2007 09:39:52
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

In article <46f48b19$0$32512$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, "Jambo" <-@-.->
wrote:

> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:Gc6dnUION8kq8mnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> > Jambo wrote:
> >> The subject title of your post is so appropriate.
> >>
> >> It's not surprising that you think a non-peer reviewed website,
> >> run by folks with names such as CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and
> >> full of anonymous posters with no credentials, bleating on about
> >> topics with no references nor publications cited, is "a little
> >> more analytical"?
> >
> > er, actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron.
> > in much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!
>
> Great, so says CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and yourself, of
> course. You wouldn't have any proof of their credentials, would you?
>
> Lying fucktard.

Oh, he's probably right. But the vast majority of them are *software
engineers.*

Date: 21 Sep 2007 20:32:23
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:Gc6dnUION8kq8mnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> The subject title of your post is so appropriate.
>>>
>>> It's not surprising that you think a non-peer reviewed website, run by
>>> folks with names such as CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and full of
>>> anonymous posters with no credentials, bleating on about topics with no
>>> references nor publications cited, is "a little more analytical"?
>> er, actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron. in
>> much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!
>
> Great, so says CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and yourself, of course. You
> wouldn't have any proof of their credentials, would you?
>
> Lying fucktard.

er, those guys all have online credentials - you just have to look for
them. fucking moron.

>
>>> Every post you make exposes the fraudulent nature of your "metallurgist"
>>> background, from "materials skool" more than 30 years ago.
>
>> all this from a guy that posts moronic crap like "modulus is strength to
>> weight".
>
> As stated before, every post you make exposes the fraudulent nature of your
> "metallurgist"
> background, from "materials skool" more than 30 years ago.
>
> Fraud.

er, the fraud is the one making stupefyingly moronic misquotes, then
trying to attribute them to someone else. that means you, fucking moron.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 21:41:49
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:32:23 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net >
wrote:
>Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:Gc6dnUION8kq8mnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>> The subject title of your post is so appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> It's not surprising that you think a non-peer reviewed website, run by
>>>> folks with names such as CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and full of
>>>> anonymous posters with no credentials, bleating on about topics with no
>>>> references nor publications cited, is "a little more analytical"?
>>> er, actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron. in
>>> much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!
>>
>> Great, so says CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and yourself, of course. You
>> wouldn't have any proof of their credentials, would you?
>>
>> Lying fucktard.
>
>er, those guys all have online credentials - you just have to look for
>them. fucking moron.

Most of them are lying.

Jasper

Date: 23 Sep 2007 16:44:17
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:32:23 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net>
> wrote:
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Gc6dnUION8kq8mnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>>> The subject title of your post is so appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not surprising that you think a non-peer reviewed website, run by
>>>>> folks with names such as CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and full of
>>>>> anonymous posters with no credentials, bleating on about topics with no
>>>>> references nor publications cited, is "a little more analytical"?
>>>> er, actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron. in
>>>> much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!
>>> Great, so says CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and yourself, of course. You
>>> wouldn't have any proof of their credentials, would you?
>>>
>>> Lying fucktard.
>> er, those guys all have online credentials - you just have to look for
>> them. fucking moron.
>
> Most of them are lying.
>

if you write open source code, you're not going to get away with lies
for very long. cmdrtaco started slashcode which is widely used for
blog-style web sites. with it, he started slashdot.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 01:39:44
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:44:17 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net >
wrote:
>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:32:23 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Gc6dnUION8kq8mnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>>>> The subject title of your post is so appropriate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not surprising that you think a non-peer reviewed website, run by
>>>>>> folks with names such as CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and full of
>>>>>> anonymous posters with no credentials, bleating on about topics with no
>>>>>> references nor publications cited, is "a little more analytical"?
>>>>> er, actually, slashdot is where a lot of engineers hang out, moron. in
>>>>> much greater numbers than r.b.t, that's for sure!
>>>> Great, so says CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and yourself, of course. You
>>>> wouldn't have any proof of their credentials, would you?
>>>>
>>>> Lying fucktard.
>>> er, those guys all have online credentials - you just have to look for
>>> them. fucking moron.
>>
>> Most of them are lying.
>
>if you write open source code, you're not going to get away with lies
>for very long. cmdrtaco started slashcode which is widely used for
>blog-style web sites. with it, he started slashdot.

He's got credentials of a sort, yes, but hardly materials engineering
credentials. Those are a lot easier to fake online.

Jasper

Date: 24 Sep 2007 15:55:52
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:07idneIbgpPPZ2vbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> if you write open source code, you're not going to get away with lies for
> very long. cmdrtaco started slashcode which is widely used for blog-style
> web sites. with it, he started slashdot.

Wow, wish the Enron guys used that for their defense.

Lying tard.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 12:46:57
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:y8mdnUVR0_pUEWnbnZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> er, the fraud is the one making stupefyingly moronic misquotes, then
> trying to attribute them to someone else. that means you, fucking moron.

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

Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
everything - they're CLASSIFIED.

Okay?

Date: 23 Sep 2007 09:58:15
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:y8mdnUVR0_pUEWnbnZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> er, the fraud is the one making stupefyingly moronic misquotes, then
>> trying to attribute them to someone else. that means you, fucking moron.
>
> 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
>
> Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
> everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
>
> Okay?
>
>
you're repeating yourself. moron. take your meds.

Date: 22 Sep 2007 01:10:01
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

> It's not surprising that you think a non-peer reviewed website, run by
> folks with names such as CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and full of
> anonymous posters with no credentials, bleating on about topics with no
> references nor publications cited, is "a little more analytical"?

Glad I finished swallowing my drink before I read that. I thought it must
have been talkinga bout rbt.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote in message
news:46f3d67d$0$17140$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:99GdnUE-Y_dPVG7bnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/20/1352208.shtml
>>
>> fortunately, the slashdot crowd is a little more analytical.
>>
>> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=303589&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20680345#20680839
>
> The subject title of your post is so appropriate.
>
> It's not surprising that you think a non-peer reviewed website, run by
> folks with names such as CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and full of
> anonymous posters with no credentials, bleating on about topics with no
> references nor publications cited, is "a little more analytical"?
>
> Could it be that you only believe this to be so because it happens to
> support your misinformed and misguided thinking on CFRP? That's a
> rhetorical question, by the way.
>
> Every post you make exposes the fraudulent nature of your "metallurgist"
> background, from "materials skool" more than 30 years ago.
>

Date: 21 Sep 2007 23:24:24
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote in message
news:JXZIi.54634$YL5.9022@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> It's not surprising that you think a non-peer reviewed website, run by
>> folks with names such as CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and full of
>> anonymous posters with no credentials, bleating on about topics with no
>> references nor publications cited, is "a little more analytical"?
>
> Glad I finished swallowing my drink before I read that. I thought it must
> have been talkinga bout rbt.

Yeah, except anon posters like me reference things, unlike the slashdot
crowd and who else? Why beamboy, of course...

And I don't fart on about my mythical "metallurgist" background from
metarials skool....

Date: 21 Sep 2007 20:34:03
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

Jambo wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
> news:JXZIi.54634$YL5.9022@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>> It's not surprising that you think a non-peer reviewed website, run by
>>> folks with names such as CmdrTaco, Samzenpus, and Robo, and full of
>>> anonymous posters with no credentials, bleating on about topics with no
>>> references nor publications cited, is "a little more analytical"?
>> Glad I finished swallowing my drink before I read that. I thought it must
>> have been talkinga bout rbt.
>
> Yeah, except anon posters like me reference things, unlike the slashdot
> crowd and who else? Why beamboy, of course...
>
> And I don't fart on about my mythical "metallurgist" background from
> metarials skool....

no, instead you bullshit and fabricate, changing your story from thread
to thread!!! fucking moron.

Date: 23 Sep 2007 12:47:35
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:y8mdnUdR0_q2EGnbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@speakeasy.net...

> no, instead you bullshit and fabricate, changing your story from thread to
> thread!!! fucking moron.

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

Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
everything - they're CLASSIFIED.

Okay?

Date: 23 Sep 2007 09:57:42
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:y8mdnUdR0_q2EGnbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>> no, instead you bullshit and fabricate, changing your story from thread to
>> thread!!! fucking moron.
>
> 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

http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html
read it. moron.

>
> Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
> everything - they're CLASSIFIED.

but it was. moron.

>
> Okay?
>
>

you're a moron! ok?

Date: 24 Sep 2007 15:54:39
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: more cfrp bleating - how appropriate

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:F_CdnSN0dJWbBmvbnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> 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
>
> http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html
> read it. moron.

Yes, I have. See my other post on your incomprehension and dying grasp at a
twig....

>>
>> Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
>> everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
>
> but it was. moron.

Sure, beamboy, suuuurreeeee...