blinded by light

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 15:16:52 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/2/2019 9:37 AM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

The bridge to which you refer was in Free China ROC Taiwan not Red
China.* Ms Pelosi probably had nothing to do with it.

OMG, haven't heard "Free China" and "Red China" used in many decades.
Good luck finding a real communist in China these days, it's more
capitalistic than the U.S..

Next can we hear about "The Iron Curtain?"

A largely capitalistic country ruled by a government that refers to
itself as "communist" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 11:37:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/2/2019 10:34 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 6:45:34 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/1/2019 4:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/1/2019 2:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2019 8:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:00:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann

wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:26:05 +0700, John B.
wrote:

The problems with all the modern, marvelous, systems is,
"sometimes
they don't work".

True. However, no system works 100% of the time in 100%
of all
possible (contrived) situations. A bicycle that is quite
suitable for
riding on pavement would probably do badly in dirt, mud,
rain, etc.
One has to design for either a specific situation, or as
in this case,
the greatest number of reasonable situations, and rely on
the
intelligence of the operator to know when to disarm the
monster. It
is impossible to design out clueless operators because we
continue to
produce better clueless operators.

As the driver who appeared sound asleep in his self driven
car
(recently highlighted here) demonstrates , "rely on the
intelligence of the operator" may not be the best path to
take.

In fact, as I think Frank will testify, industrial safety
is largely
concerned with eliminating "reliance on the intelligence
of the
operator" :-)

I think it's worse than that. Industrial safety nowadays has
to prevent deliberate suicide if it's at all possible to do
so. As in "He crawled under the barrier on his belly and
stood in front of the robot so it would stab him to death.
That's the company's fault."



With a mind like that you might consider a second career as plaintiff's
attorney.

Not me. I was more interested (although grudgingly) in how to design the
barriers to make that impossible.

BTW, the incident that inspired that post wasn't actually a suicide,
AFAIK. Instead it was a super-cocky young engineer who thought he knew
better than all the system designers.

And he didn't crawl under the barrier. Instead he lay down on his back
on a parts conveyor to get carried into the workcell without shutting it
down. Still, when he cleared the sensor problem that had stopped the
robot, it did go right through him.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Recently in China and entire large bridge collapsed into the river
below it and killed people living in boats beneath. What would you care
to bet that it wasn't built by the same company that won the Oakland
span of the bay bridge from an American contractor? Every single piece
of steel in the present bridge has been shown to be FAR below
standards. Every support connection has broken before the bridge even
opened and an American firm has redesigned it to have sliders on it so
that supposedly the bridge would be able to slide back and forth
supported by the suspension wires which have since been found not to
have been properly sealed and which are now rusting.

This must be why you think that the Democrats who run California are so intelligent.


OK I'll take that bet. May we say $1000?

The bridge to which you refer was in Free China ROC Taiwan
not Red China. Ms Pelosi probably had nothing to do with it.

Something that always has made me wonder about "the bridge" is that
the company I worked for did a lot of work for the larger oil
companies and their contracts always specified, in detail all the bits
and pieces that went into building whatever it was. Every cement pour
had to have test cylinders poured and even the material that pipe used
in pipelines used was specified and in the case of larger pipelines
test samples had to be furnished. On a gas pipeline every weld was
x-rayed.

The oil companies tested and inspected everything, even to the point
of having a "paint Engineer" for an off shore platform building
project to ensure that the painting (somewhat important for off shore
work) was done properly.

Wasn't something similar done when building a major bridge project?
--
cheers,

John B.



Writing a good spec and enforcing it is very expensive. It would seem to me
that somebody cheaped out and somebody else profited from it.

On 10/2/2019 7:59 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 11:37:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/2/2019 10:34 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 6:45:34 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/1/2019 4:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/1/2019 2:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2019 8:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:00:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann

wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:26:05 +0700, John B.
wrote:

The problems with all the modern, marvelous, systems is,
"sometimes
they don't work".

True. However, no system works 100% of the time in 100%
of all
possible (contrived) situations. A bicycle that is quite
suitable for
riding on pavement would probably do badly in dirt, mud,
rain, etc.
One has to design for either a specific situation, or as
in this case,
the greatest number of reasonable situations, and rely on
the
intelligence of the operator to know when to disarm the
monster. It
is impossible to design out clueless operators because we
continue to
produce better clueless operators.

As the driver who appeared sound asleep in his self driven
car
(recently highlighted here) demonstrates , "rely on the
intelligence of the operator" may not be the best path to
take.

In fact, as I think Frank will testify, industrial safety
is largely
concerned with eliminating "reliance on the intelligence
of the
operator" :-)

I think it's worse than that. Industrial safety nowadays has
to prevent deliberate suicide if it's at all possible to do
so. As in "He crawled under the barrier on his belly and
stood in front of the robot so it would stab him to death.
That's the company's fault."



With a mind like that you might consider a second career as plaintiff's
attorney.

Not me. I was more interested (although grudgingly) in how to design the
barriers to make that impossible.

BTW, the incident that inspired that post wasn't actually a suicide,
AFAIK. Instead it was a super-cocky young engineer who thought he knew
better than all the system designers.

And he didn't crawl under the barrier. Instead he lay down on his back
on a parts conveyor to get carried into the workcell without shutting it
down. Still, when he cleared the sensor problem that had stopped the
robot, it did go right through him.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Recently in China and entire large bridge collapsed into the river
below it and killed people living in boats beneath. What would you care
to bet that it wasn't built by the same company that won the Oakland
span of the bay bridge from an American contractor? Every single piece
of steel in the present bridge has been shown to be FAR below
standards. Every support connection has broken before the bridge even
opened and an American firm has redesigned it to have sliders on it so
that supposedly the bridge would be able to slide back and forth
supported by the suspension wires which have since been found not to
have been properly sealed and which are now rusting.

This must be why you think that the Democrats who run California are so intelligent.


OK I'll take that bet. May we say $1000?

The bridge to which you refer was in Free China ROC Taiwan
not Red China. Ms Pelosi probably had nothing to do with it.

Something that always has made me wonder about "the bridge" is that
the company I worked for did a lot of work for the larger oil
companies and their contracts always specified, in detail all the bits
and pieces that went into building whatever it was. Every cement pour
had to have test cylinders poured and even the material that pipe used
in pipelines used was specified and in the case of larger pipelines
test samples had to be furnished. On a gas pipeline every weld was
x-rayed.

The oil companies tested and inspected everything, even to the point
of having a "paint Engineer" for an off shore platform building
project to ensure that the painting (somewhat important for off shore
work) was done properly.

Wasn't something similar done when building a major bridge project?
--
cheers,

John B.



Writing a good spec and enforcing it is very expensive. It would seem to me
that somebody cheaped out and somebody else profited from it.


As when a Shinkansen derailed at a failed bridge after an
earthquake in Japan[1]. The concrete forms had been
half-filled with scrap lumber when it was poured many years
before. Or, as they say in the pubic works racket, it's
cheaper to buy the inspector than to build to plan.

[1]Derailments in an earthquake are rare for JNR; they
mostly have excellent design and engineering.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/2/2019 7:22 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

Don't you find it strange that I can't find the actual company that BUILT the Salesforce Transit Center...

Um - no. No, I don't. You seem to have difficulty finding anything that
will prove any of your arguments correct.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/2/2019 5:45 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A largely capitalistic country ruled by a government that refers to
itself as "communist" :-)

Exactly. And when you go there and meet with government officials, all
of whom are party members, you realize that they are concerned about the
same things that government officials in other countries are concerned
about--jobs, tax revenue, environment, transportation, housing, etc..

On 10/2/2019 9:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/2/2019 7:22 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

Don't you find it strange that I can't find the actual
company that BUILT the Salesforce Transit Center...

Um - no. No, I don't. You seem to have difficulty finding
anything that will prove any of your arguments correct.



Can't find parties to current lawsuits?
Why not? it's all public record:

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...ashi-tjpa.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 19:16:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/2/2019 6:45 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 13:03:41 +0100, Tosspot
wrote:

On 02/10/2019 09.40, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 09:34:19 +0100, Tosspot
wrote:

On 30/09/2019 14.54, jbeattie wrote:

snip

I also see a lot of DRL "good luck" rear blinkies -- the sort of
thing you would get free for your kid to wear trick-or-treating. Why
bother.

I've been using relights for 6 months now in a fit and forget mode.
I've only had rear lights fail a few times due to water ingress, or
cable issues, so I see the reelight not as an alternative to proper
lights, but an always on(for a given value of) flash and hope until you
notice the main rear light is defunct for some reason.

How noticeable are the relights, say from 50 meters away?
I've been using a flashing red tail light for some time that is quite
noticeable but of course you need to charge the battery once in a
while :-(

The ones I've seen, very. They also have quite a field of vision. The
startup is interesting, they flash about 1 Hz for a minute of two, then
get up to 2 Hz, then seem to settle on about 3 after 5 minutes.

Can't really say much more, if it's still working in a couple of years
it will be worth it. If not, a Pox on the lot of 'em!

I was mistaken when you said "relight" and was thinking of the tiny
little ones that were power with the battery on the spokes but I now
see that they have a later design that seems to generate power from
the rotating wheel rim.

I too was thinking of the tiny little pulsing ones driven by a spoke
magnet.

I see they also have one driven by a magnetically coupled dynamo. (I
think it was James who figured out how those things are driven.) I guess
the advantage is supposed to be no slipping in the rain or snow. But I'm
not crazy about the requirement to put it super close to the rim,
without a mechanism to move it away for wheel removal.

But it's certainly not overly bright, at least at the headlight end. 60
lumens is about what a 2.4 Watt halogen bulb used to put out. Back in
the day, I did fine with those as long as the lamp's optics put the
light on the road where it was needed - as opposed to, say, a round
flashlight-style beam that wasted half the lumens. Based on reviews, it
sounds like the Reelight optics are not very impressive.

How odd that we have one contingent of cyclists claiming that anything
less than a thousand lumens is insufficient, plus another contingent
claiming that _any_ glimmering bike light is a good bike light. Is there
another area of bike design where the standards of enthusiasts are so loose?

In reading the various discussions here the most common standard seems
to be "mine is best" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 02/10/2019 23.45, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 13:03:41 +0100, Tosspot
wrote:

On 02/10/2019 09.40, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 09:34:19 +0100, Tosspot
wrote:

On 30/09/2019 14.54, jbeattie wrote:

snip

I also see a lot of DRL "good luck" rear blinkies -- the sort
of thing you would get free for your kid to wear
trick-or-treating. Why bother.

I've been using relights for 6 months now in a fit and forget
mode. I've only had rear lights fail a few times due to water
ingress, or cable issues, so I see the reelight not as an
alternative to proper lights, but an always on(for a given
value of) flash and hope until you notice the main rear light
is defunct for some reason.

How noticeable are the relights, say from 50 meters away? I've
been using a flashing red tail light for some time that is quite
noticeable but of course you need to charge the battery once in
a while :-(

The ones I've seen, very. They also have quite a field of vision.
The startup is interesting, they flash about 1 Hz for a minute of
two, then get up to 2 Hz, then seem to settle on about 3 after 5
minutes.

Can't really say much more, if it's still working in a couple of
years it will be worth it. If not, a Pox on the lot of 'em!

I was mistaken when you said "relight" and was thinking of the tiny
little ones that were power with the battery on the spokes but I now
see that they have a later design that seems to generate power from
the rotating wheel rim.

I have these

https://www.reelight.com/collections...nt=34453441041

without the front one, because I can see that! As I say, for a
maintenance free peace of mind, not bad. Reality is LED rear lights are
so good these days it isn't really a problem, but I have had a cable
come undone twice, and the hope is the reelights are waterproof and
totally maintenance free.

Not for everyone, but I thought it was worth a punt.

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:37:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/2/2019 7:22 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

Don't you find it strange that I can't find the actual company that BUILT the Salesforce Transit Center...

Um - no. No, I don't. You seem to have difficulty finding anything that
will prove any of your arguments correct.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Then with your publicly proclaimed massive knowledge why didn't YOU tell us who built it?

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:39:50 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/2/2019 5:45 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A largely capitalistic country ruled by a government that refers to
itself as "communist" :-)

Exactly. And when you go there and meet with government officials, all
of whom are party members, you realize that they are concerned about the
same things that government officials in other countries are concerned
about--jobs, tax revenue, environment, transportation, housing, etc..

I was wondering why they wanted to deport all of the residents of Hong Kong and replace them with government officials and all of their families for 3 generations.