Luns Tee wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 8:01:06 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I don't think Tom understands the difference between strength and
stiffness. And as usual, he's misstating my points in general.

I suspect he mostly understands things correctly, but does not state his
line of reasoning clearly, leaving out certain assumptions, and then
gets all up in arms when anybody dares to point out that what he's
written can be completely wrong under different prevailing assumptions.
The ensuing argument is then always either him dangling bits of his
conclusions for people to infer his assumptions from, or his inverting
the situation by applying his assumptions to statements made under
different assumptions, then calling out the incorrect conclusions that
result.


To wit:
Moreover hollowing the axle out also increases the rigidity of
the axle.

Appears to be an oversimplification of:

Hollowing the axle out allows increasing its outer diameter by negating
the weight penalty of a larger diameter solid axle. This increase in
outer diameter can more than make up for rigidity lost from hollowing,
yielding a more rigid axle.

The extended text, although a little convoluted, is entrely legitimate.
However, it leaves things in a different place (larger outer diameter)
than what a reasonable reading of the original sentance would (hollowed
out, no other subsequent changes as none are mentioned). Which hollowed
spindle should we assume in making a comparison? Tom tries to peg down
this ending place by immediately citing Octalink, but everybody's
already been thrown off in a different direction from the initial feint
and missing subsequent steps.


Agreed. If we could get everyone in the same room, with a white board, a
moderator, and a big hulking guy with a club to maintain order, we could
probably come to a lot more agreement.