casette shifting, again

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 1:34:58 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.


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!


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

Andrew, rather than answer the question Frank as usual dodges it because someone would criticize his answers. That is what they do on this group.

Swept area has very little meaning. Rim brakes have a lot of swept area which only means that you can use less force for brake application. This requires almost no knowledge of physics and common sense would explain this to most people. Disk brakes have a very small swept area and hence the disk brakes have to have multiples of force added. Again, we don't need to suggest to someone that they read a book rather than answer the question. We have hydraulic brakes in order to get the required force to operate disk brakes efficiently. But the end result is that disk brake pads wear very fast and have to be replaced often. And the disks themselves in order to be light have to be very thin and hence they wear out rapidly as well.

Nothing beats answering the questions rather than telling someone they're too stupid to understand it and should get more education which seems to be the common answer here.

On 12/15/2018 6:20 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.



From your link, "“I told him, ‘If you put one more ounce in
there, you’re going to blow yourself up,’” Hegele said. “He
put 8 more ounces in.”



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

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 3:42:34 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:


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

Of course not - you're trying to be your usual asshole because that's become all you know.

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:33:11 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
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.

Everyone had a repair manual and no one opened them. Take you crap elsewhere since I was four years in SAC and only saw a manual opened when exact alignments such as the radar were required.

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 8:54:50 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:

Well, John, customers of our s who are 'retired' get
amazingly lucrative offers to rework/rewrite COBOL systems.
Some of the 'obsolete' languages are critically
undersupported and in the case of major bank mainframes,
irreplaceable.

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

Well, living in the land of Silicon Valley and working with major companies and research facilities I have never even once saw anyone looking for anyone to maintain obsolete programming languages but to write all new code.

On 12/15/2018 9:55 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:

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?

Emaneul, you're shifting the discussion deep into your own imagination.
We're suggesting you gain enough fundamental knowledge to frame your
questions so we can understand them. Nobody has told you to shave your
legs or remove your helmet.

FWIW, I have never shaved my legs. I almost never wear a helmet. Get a grip!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/15/2018 10:06 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
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.

You're being a twit.

At our university, I taught subjects related to your vague questions for
decades. In fact, questions on bicycle brakes occasionally popped up in
my exams, because they involve fairly obvious physical principles, ones
my students should be capable of understanding and calculating.

My office was always open to students. I told each class at the
beginning of each semester that students were welcome to bring questions
at any time I was there, and I was there more than 40 hours per week.
Countless students brought countless questions. I was praised for my
patience many times.

In that situation, if a student said something like "How can we
calculate the efficiency of this brake system?" I could discuss the
question with him, asking him relevant questions like "OK, what is the
definition of efficiency?" and gradually get him to the point where he
revised his question to make sense. Then I would help him work toward
understanding and an answer.

You are starting far too deep in a hole. You're misusing vocabulary,
asking foggy questions and putting a chip on your shoulder when people
point out those problems to you.

I never had to chase a student out of my office for being blockheaded.
But if you were there, you might have been told to leave.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/15/2018 10:23 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
FYI I've had it with this newsgroup.

Good.

--
- Frank Krygowski

John B. Slocomb writes:

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.

Richard Stallman was the orignal author of GNU emacs, which was based on
an earlier implementation in TECO macros. According to the current
Wikipedia page, that was written in 1976 by Carl Mikkelsen, David
A. Moon and Guy L. Steele Jr. I know that Carl Mikkelsen believes it,
because he told me so.

Since the debut of GNU emacs there have been other versions: Gosling
emacs, Lucid emacs, and several that I can't think of.

--

On 12/16/2018 3:33 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


If it is of interest, the original method of determining muzzle
velocity was a ballistic pendulum, hang the gun up and measure how far
it recoils when fired. Or vise versa, fire the gun toward a pendulum
and see how far the pendulum moves.

How many of us have actually done that?

[My hand is raised. Physics can be fun!]


--
- Frank Krygowski