casette shifting, again

On 12/15/2018 7:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/15/2018 3:04 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Emanuel, with all due respect, you should
spend the winter reading a physics book or
two. Or three. Skip the parts on electricity,
atomic physics, etc. Concentrate on forces,
motion, work, energy etc. - the parts that
apply to bicycles. [...]

Blah blah blah, you have told me this at least
a dozen times by now. Probably because it is
easier to be didactic/demeaning than to
actually answer the questions.


more.

I left school without having slept through even one physics
class. My reference work here is a 1955 high school textbook
for $1 (9 Kr). I don't know all of even that, but I
understand the world well enough to know that this headline
last week:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...soon-2022.html

was completely ridiculous. The chamber pressures are in the
same range, but not power, not even within a magnitude*!
Power is work over time. Without some grasp of the actual
world, you would not have laughed aloud when reading the
headline, etc.

*A typical 120mm tank round is 7.5 kilos of depleted uranium
moving at 1700 m/s. The new 6.8 rifle typically moves 7.5
grams at 850 m/s. That's why you need basic physics.

BTW, here's an interesting case that crossed my desk: https://www.bendbulletin.com/localst...killed-in-tank https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...explosion.html Interesting object lesson for re-loaders. I'm representing a party on a collateral insurance issue. I've represented a couple big gun makers in over-pressure cases. Reloads. Too much powder or the wrong powder can blow-up guns large and small.

Interesting to me that Preston's family wants extra money because
Preston "knew he was going to die."

I know I'm going to die, too. Jay, can you get me some money because of
that? I'll donate it to Tom! ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

John B. Slocomb writes:

Why in the world would anyone want to use Emacs, (by the way the
proper name is "GNU Emacs") an application that is 40 years old. Yes,
I know that it can do many strange and wondrous things but when you
get right down to it, it is hardly the weapon of choice for writing a
book, posting to USENET or keeping one's shopping list current.

There have been many flavors of emacs over the years, "GNU Emacs" is one
of them. Most definitely my weapon of choice when posting to usenet.

--

John B. Slocomb wrote:

CF might indicate Carbon Fiber but I believe
in this case it probably means Coefficient of
Friction :-)

Thanks, I tried to google it but as one would
expect everything connecting it to bikes ended
up interpretating CF as Carbon Fiber.
One should start writing CFRP as Jeff does.

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

John B. Slocomb wrote:

Actually answering questions is rather
difficult when the recipient has insufficient
knowledge to understand the answer.

That's what I said. Instead of answering my
questions, you tell me to read books and Google
them. You don't even realize the implication,
are you? The people who write books and web
pages are able to explain it to me, but you are
not. This is all a ridiculous and absurd
collective reaction from a bunch of bike tech
people, responding to a couple of question on
bike technology, on a bike
technology newsgroup.

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 03:12:56 +0100, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

One should start writing CFRP as Jeff does.

That wasn't me. I usually use just CF. However, looking at the
Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fiber_reinforced_polymer
it appears that CFRP is the correct acronym for CF bicycle tubing. I
should probably change my evil ways and use CFRP.




--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Ralph Barone wrote:

I thought that the phrase RTFM came from the
computer culture, and not bike culture.
But seriously, if you went on an emacs group
and said "I'm having trouble trying to use
the doomahickie thingamajig to make my
letters all angularinated", they'd probably
tell you to RTFM and learn the language
before posting.

1) "RTFM" is used by kids and teenagers.
What excuse do you guys have?

2) "I'm having trouble trying to use the
doomahickie thingamajig to make my letters
all angularinated" - a fun example
(N.B. irony) - but, why don't you post an
actual quote from my question on rod brakes,
and show where my language is in any way
comparable to that?

3) I don't care what you think anyone
"probably" would do on gnu.emacs.help.
Go and ask a sincere question and I'll
follow the replies closely.

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 23:36:09 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

Emanuel Berg wrote:
AMuzi wrote:

Blah blah blah, you have told me this at
least a dozen times by now. Probably because
it is easier to be didactic/demeaning than
to actually answer the questions.

Sincerely, Frank's advice is excellent.
Visit a used book store and find a basic
physics textbook. It's well worth a few Krona
and a few hours of your time, if only to
posit questions here!

I spent 6 years, 7 months, and 12 days at the
university. My degree project [1] is 153 pages.
I solved the same problem five other guys did
at two North-American universities. I don't
have to prove to anyone I can read and
understand whatever I put my mind to.

In fact, this has nothing to do with any of
this. This is the bike culture which for
whatever insane reason is snobbish
beyond belief.

You can all try this out for yourself.
Install Emacs, use it until you run into
a problem, then go to gnu.emacs.help and ask
about it. If you get the answer "you are not
using the terminology correctly, go read
a book, then come back" please show it to me,
as, in all my years in computing, I've never
ever seen that.

[1] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/hs-li...ort/report.pdf


I thought that the phrase RTFM came from the computer culture, and not bike
culture. But seriously, if you went on an emacs group and said "I'm having
trouble trying to use the doomahickie thingamajig to make my letters all
angularinated", they'd probably tell you to RTFM and learn the language
before posting.

I think that the term "RTFM" predates computers as I heard it used way
back when I worked on airplanes. In fact it was a must, to get caught
working on something without the manual and without it being opened to
the correct page was justification for losing a stripe at one time in
SAC (Strategic Air Command).

cheers,

John B.

Ralph Barone wrote:

Frank continues to tell you to read a book
because many of us don't answer your
questions because due to your use of
non-standard language, we can't understand
your questions.

I see. I moment ago, you don't answer because
I don't understand your answers. Now, you don't
answer because you don't understand
my questions!

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 21:11:03 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. Slocomb writes:

Why in the world would anyone want to use Emacs, (by the way the
proper name is "GNU Emacs") an application that is 40 years old. Yes,
I know that it can do many strange and wondrous things but when you
get right down to it, it is hardly the weapon of choice for writing a
book, posting to USENET or keeping one's shopping list current.

There have been many flavors of emacs over the years, "GNU Emacs" is one
of them. Most definitely my weapon of choice when posting to usenet.

I always thought that Emacs was written by Richard Stallman way back
in the early days and then made it part of his GNU library of
applications.

cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 18:42:30 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/15/2018 5:01 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
AMuzi wrote:

Blah blah blah, you have told me this at
least a dozen times by now. Probably because
it is easier to be didactic/demeaning than
to actually answer the questions.

Sincerely, Frank's advice is excellent.
Visit a used book store and find a basic
physics textbook. It's well worth a few Krona
and a few hours of your time, if only to
posit questions here!

I spent 6 years, 7 months, and 12 days at the
university. My degree project [1] is 153 pages.
I solved the same problem five other guys did
at two North-American universities. I don't
have to prove to anyone I can read and
understand whatever I put my mind to.

In fact, this has nothing to do with any of
this. This is the bike culture which for
whatever insane reason is snobbish
beyond belief.

I'm not trying to be snobbish. If you ask questions properly, we can
answer them.

Example: You asked "Swept area, should that be big or small for the
brake to be efficient?" But in a technical sense, the very purpose of a
brake is to be completely inefficient - that is, to throw away energy.

(I can't resist) Would one say very efficient at being inefficient :-?

So what are you asking? Are you referring to lots of braking force for
little input force? Are you referring to little lost motion in the
actuating mechanism? Is it something else? I honestly can't tell.

I don't doubt that you may be brilliant at computers. But not everyone
is a polymath. As an example, one of my colleagues at the university has
a PhD in electronics with many publications in digital systems, robotic
dynamics and stability, etc. However, he had to bring his bike in to
school to have me adjust his brakes. Again, not everyone is a polymath.

And many of the questions you have asked here are extremely basic. If I
didn't already know, I wouldn't ask an international discussion group
what "swept area" of a brake means. I'd google it.
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen..._area_calc.png

cheers,

John B.