casette shifting, again

John B. Slocomb wrote:

That is a silly answer. The fact that you
spent more then six years at a school doesn't
mean that you know everything. In fact that
is quite evident in your questions about
bicycles posted here.

Did I use the words "I know everything"?
I said, I have nothing to prove to you guys
regarding reading and understanding things in
general.

When I tell you about my bike projects, Frank
tells me they are "diletant hobbies".
When I ask a question on bike technology on
a bike forum, three or four guys (I've lost
track) spams my with insults and tells me what
to do, instead of answering the questions,
which they understand more than well!

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.

Hardly snobbish.

Not snobbish? Shave your legs? Remove your
helmet immediately after stepping of the bike?
If you don't, you are an embarrassment to
the sport?

the fact is that you don't understand enough
about bicycles to even use the proper
nomenclature for the various parts, never
mind understanding how they work.

You are welcome to come to my "diletant hobby"
shop. By now, hundreds of bikes have been
completely restored there by me and other
people. This is mostly steel, single-speed (or
3, 5-speed) commuters, not ridiculous lycra guy
bikers who think they are the most important
person in the world and who believes they are
tech wizards just because they can fiddle a bit
with their own bike in their cozy homes after
a day at the office pushing papers.

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.


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.

That's besides the point, but OK, I'll play
along: I'm posting this on Usenet from
Emacs Gnus. I've written one book [1] and two
papers [2 3] and thousands of mails and
programs with Emacs, err, "GNU Emacs".

[1] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/borta/borta.pdf
[2] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/about/degree/x.pdf
[3] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/hs-li...ort/report.pdf

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

Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

OK, interesting, but you understood what
I meant. You could still have explained the
terminology ambiguity, of course.

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 honestly don't belive you.

I don't doubt that you may be brilliant at
computers.

I'm not 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.

I run a bike shop ("illegal" or whatever but
still), a carpentry, a garden, a huge firewood
project, I repair houses (bricklaying), besides
my "brilliant" computer projects, and several
other things I can't think of right now.

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.

That's means I'm not like you! Thanks a lot,
for once.

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

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:53:29 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 15:59:21 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

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.

It might be correct if they care comparing the 6.8mm ammunition with
the typical shaped charge tank rounds at the maximum effective range
of the tank round. Tank rounds intentionally fly at low velocities so
that the round remains intact on impact for a sufficiently long time
for the Munroe Effect to work. I'm too lazy to run the numbers, but
my guess(tm) is that the delivered energy of a slow tank round might
be approximately the same as the much higher velocity 6.8mm round.
The army hasn't disclosed the exact cartridge that will be used in the
new automatic rifle, but it looks like the muzzle energy will be about
2,100 joules with a 16 inch (410mm) barrel. At identical ranges, the
6.8mm bullet will still be traveling quite fast, while the tank round
will have slowed considerably.

"6.8mm Remington SPC"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8mm_Remington_SPC

"High-explosive anti-tank warhead"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-explosive_anti-tank_warhead

"Shaped Charge"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

But one of the common projectiles used in direct fire tank weapons are
APDS rounds. The 120 mm L11 gun in the Chieftain tank way back in 1960
had a muzzle velocity of 1370 M/S or 4,452.5 ft/sec. The more modern
stuff like the General Dynamics KEW-A1 has a muzzle velocity of 1,740
m/s or 5,700 ft/sec.

Muzzle velocity of the 6.8 Remington (24 in bbl) is in the high 2,000
ft/sec to low 3,000 ft/sec range depending on bullet weight (110 grain
bullet = ~2,800 ft/sec.). This velocity range has been attainable in
rifles for generations, the 7mm Remington, that dates back to 196? had
a muzzle velocity of 3,500 ft/sec with 110 grain bullet.



cheers,

John B.

FYI I've had it with this newsgroup. For once,
let me come with a couple of insults.
Mine aren't as, eh, "subtle" as yours.
Ralph Barone, Frank Krygowski, and
John B Slocom, you are all a bunch of cowards
hiding behind your computers, taking
a ridiculous amount of pride in understanding
how *a bike* works. Too bad you are all so old
and wise, otherwise we could have had an
international meeting were I would gladly knock
your teeth out. BTW could you fight even in
your twenties Frank? Were you that much of
a "polymath" even then?

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

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:20:42 -0800 (PST), 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.

-- Jay Beattie.

One of the things I notices in the reference was that the gun had been
"de-militarized" and that "was restored by Preston to working order".
The term "de-militarized", at least as used by the U.S.A.F., means
that the weapon is modified to a point that it cannot be fired, and
cannot be repaired. In small arms usually by cutting the receiver and
barrel into at least two parts, usually with a cutting torch.

cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 03:20:53 +0100, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

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.

The point is that when an individual doesn't know that the funny rings
with teeth are called sprockets or chain wheels or cogs and the that
dirty thing that connects them is called a chain it is difficult to
communicate with him/her/it.

Yes, I suppose that we could write a book to explain bicycles to you
in answer to your questions but why? There are books and books and
books already written that explain bicycles in astonishing detail but
you apparently can't be bothered to read them. Why should we bother.

cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 03:31:09 +0100, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

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?

The initials "RTFM" may be used by kids and teenagers but the concept
is used by every technical individual I know. For example, I don't
know any engineers that don't have reference books to hand, and use
them. The U.S. Air Force felt that manuals were so important that not
having one to hand when repairing an airplane was, in some instances,
justification for punishment. Even people that cook use recipe books,
and refer to them.


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.

cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 03:55:13 +0100, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:

That is a silly answer. The fact that you
spent more then six years at a school doesn't
mean that you know everything. In fact that
is quite evident in your questions about
bicycles posted here.

Did I use the words "I know everything"?
I said, I have nothing to prove to you guys
regarding reading and understanding things in
general.

When I tell you about my bike projects, Frank
tells me they are "diletant hobbies".
When I ask a question on bike technology on
a bike forum, three or four guys (I've lost
track) spams my with insults and tells me what
to do, instead of answering the questions,
which they understand more than well!

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.

Hardly snobbish.

Not snobbish? Shave your legs? Remove your
helmet immediately after stepping of the bike?
If you don't, you are an embarrassment to
the sport?

the fact is that you don't understand enough
about bicycles to even use the proper
nomenclature for the various parts, never
mind understanding how they work.

You are welcome to come to my "diletant hobby"
shop. By now, hundreds of bikes have been
completely restored there by me and other
people. This is mostly steel, single-speed (or
3, 5-speed) commuters, not ridiculous lycra guy
bikers who think they are the most important
person in the world and who believes they are
tech wizards just because they can fiddle a bit
with their own bike in their cozy homes after
a day at the office pushing papers.

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.


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.

That's besides the point, but OK, I'll play
along: I'm posting this on Usenet from
Emacs Gnus. I've written one book [1] and two
papers [2 3] and thousands of mails and
programs with Emacs, err, "GNU Emacs".

[1] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/borta/borta.pdf
[2] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/about/degree/x.pdf
[3] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/hs-li...ort/report.pdf

So what? You could, if you wanted to take the time dig the Panama
cannel with spoon one supposes. Or any other ridiculous description,
but I don't know of anyone that writes for a living that uses emacs.
Certainly one could but the people I know that write for a living
don't bother as their main interest is simply getting words on paper.

But you were the ones that first mentioned emacs, and yes, I did
install and use emacs for a very limited time but I found that a
dedicated word processing app was more efficient.

cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 04:23:09 +0100, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

FYI I've had it with this newsgroup. For once,
let me come with a couple of insults.
Mine aren't as, eh, "subtle" as yours.
Ralph Barone, Frank Krygowski, and
John B Slocom, you are all a bunch of cowards
hiding behind your computers, taking
a ridiculous amount of pride in understanding
how *a bike* works. Too bad you are all so old
and wise, otherwise we could have had an
international meeting were I would gladly knock
your teeth out. BTW could you fight even in
your twenties Frank? Were you that much of
a "polymath" even then?

Hardly. Frank is a Professional Engineer and a retired collage
professor. I am retired from managing a company that in its last years
was billing 10 million dollars a year. Mr. Barone I'm sorry to say I
know nothing about.

But your offer to "knock your teeth out" rather says it all, doesn't
it. You don't know and you are apparently unable to learn so you fall
back on physical threats.

Is this what you learned in your 6 years at collage? Rather a waste of
time, I would have to say, as I know chaps that never learned to read
or write that are quite capable of knocking your teeth out if that is
how you want to play.

cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 9:20:55 PM UTC-5, Emanuel Berg wrote:
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

They're telling you to read a book so that you can learn the proper BASIC terminology for when you post a question. It'd also help a lot when you get an answer as you'd then be able to understand the terminology that the person used.

I don't understand why you refuse to learn the basic terminology related to bicycles and bicycle components unless you're simply trolling.

Cheers