Soldering spokes.

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 9:34:09 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2015 7:24 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:36:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/16/2015 5:58 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 10:06:23 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2015 10:44 AM, wrote:

well, not that I'm soldering spokes tomorrow but can Andy or JB give an estimate of how
stiffer a 36 700c is with tie n solder n standard ?

If I'm allowed to guess, I'll say zero percent stiffer.


http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/tied-soldered.html It looks cool, and I thought it made a
difference, but when you think of how a tension structure works, it
shouldn't make a
difference.

The measurements mentioned in the article by Jobst certainly don't
surprise me.

It's interesting, though, that you thought it made a difference. That's
evidence that we're influenced by our expectations. I think about that
almost every time I read another "stiff but compliant" road test.

Stiff but compliant: Perhaps the writer doesn't understand English
:-) I've read that the American schools now turns out poorly educated
individuals :-)


They may be crappy and dysfunctional but it's a really
expensive system.

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

nnnnnnnnnnnnnn

once upon there was a racer with a soldering iron. he awoke one morning with the idea solder/wiring spokes at intersections was maybe positive.

The wheels looked good, He sold RCA for a living.

He won.

Soldering iron sales went up.

He bought a boat

the rest is history

On 2/18/2015 9:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2015 7:24 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
I've read that the American schools now turns out poorly educated
individuals :-)


They may be crappy and dysfunctional but it's a really expensive system.

So in our state, they've re-routed a lot of the tax money into privately
run charter schools. Which, it turns out, are even more crappy, even
more dysfunctional and even more expensive. Kids on the roster don't
bother to attend, passing rates are worse than public schools...

But the corporations that run them are really profitable! That helps
finance the bribes... no, wait, um, campaign contributions that make the
charter schools possible.

There's now talk about (gasp!) making charter schools actually meet the
standards that public schools have to meet. Damn, more government
interference with the free market!

--
- Frank Krygowski

interference with the free market!

so Ohio advocates cancelling all student aid programs unless Jay Gould runs the show ? Or Alfred Vail ?

where would Ohio be then ?

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 9:34:09 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2015 7:24 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:36:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/16/2015 5:58 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 10:06:23 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 2/16/2015 10:44 AM, wrote:

well, not that I'm soldering spokes tomorrow but can Andy or JB
give an estimate of how
stiffer a 36 700c is with tie n solder n standard ?

If I'm allowed to guess, I'll say zero percent stiffer.


http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/tied-soldered.html It looks cool,
and I thought it made a
difference, but when you think of how a tension structure works, it
shouldn't make a
difference.

The measurements mentioned in the article by Jobst certainly don't
surprise me.

It's interesting, though, that you thought it made a difference.
That's
evidence that we're influenced by our expectations. I think about
that
almost every time I read another "stiff but compliant" road test.

Stiff but compliant: Perhaps the writer doesn't understand English
:-) I've read that the American schools now turns out poorly educated
individuals :-)


They may be crappy and dysfunctional but it's a really
expensive system.

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

nnnnnnnnnnnnnn

once upon there was a racer with a soldering iron. he awoke one morning
with the idea solder/wiring spokes at intersections was maybe positive.

The wheels looked good, He sold RCA for a living.

He won.

Soldering iron sales went up.

That fluxite advert probably opened a whole nother can of worms.

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 1:22:42 PM UTC-5, Ian Field wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 9:34:09 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/17/2015 7:24 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:36:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/16/2015 5:58 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 10:06:23 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 2/16/2015 10:44 AM, wrote:

well, not that I'm soldering spokes tomorrow but can Andy or JB
give an estimate of how
stiffer a 36 700c is with tie n solder n standard ?

If I'm allowed to guess, I'll say zero percent stiffer.


http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/tied-soldered.html It looks cool,
and I thought it made a
difference, but when you think of how a tension structure works, it
shouldn't make a
difference.

The measurements mentioned in the article by Jobst certainly don't
surprise me.

It's interesting, though, that you thought it made a difference.
That's
evidence that we're influenced by our expectations. I think about
that
almost every time I read another "stiff but compliant" road test.

Stiff but compliant: Perhaps the writer doesn't understand English
:-) I've read that the American schools now turns out poorly educated
individuals :-)


They may be crappy and dysfunctional but it's a really
expensive system.

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

nnnnnnnnnnnnnn

once upon there was a racer with a soldering iron. he awoke one morning
with the idea solder/wiring spokes at intersections was maybe positive.

The wheels looked good, He sold RCA for a living.

He won.

Soldering iron sales went up.

That fluxite advert probably opened a whole nother can of worms.

WORMS INFLUX ?

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:34:04 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/17/2015 7:24 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:36:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/16/2015 5:58 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 10:06:23 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2015 10:44 AM, wrote:

well, not that I'm soldering spokes tomorrow but can Andy or JB give an estimate of how
stiffer a 36 700c is with tie n solder n standard ?

If I'm allowed to guess, I'll say zero percent stiffer.


http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/tied-soldered.html It looks cool, and I thought it made a
difference, but when you think of how a tension structure works, it
shouldn't make a
difference.

The measurements mentioned in the article by Jobst certainly don't
surprise me.

It's interesting, though, that you thought it made a difference. That's
evidence that we're influenced by our expectations. I think about that
almost every time I read another "stiff but compliant" road test.

Stiff but compliant: Perhaps the writer doesn't understand English
:-) I've read that the American schools now turns out poorly educated
individuals :-)


They may be crappy and dysfunctional but it's a really
expensive system.

Well, I suppose that one out of three is pretty good :-)

But as an aside, my father enrolled in the University of New Hampshire
in, probably, 1926, or 27. My grandfather was probably raising
chickens for a living, but was doing it without hired hands so it must
have been a smallish operation, maybe a couple thousand chickens.

But, the point is that the entire cost of my father's collage
education was born by his parents.

What happened?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/18/2015 10:14 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

But, the point is that the entire cost of my father's collage
education was born by his parents.

What happened?

Several things, I think.

One is that college campuses are vastly different places than when I
attended - at least, mine is. Just before I began attending, classes
were still held in old quonset huts. I had classes in old attics of
ancient houses on campus, or the pipe-filled basement of some utility
building. New buildings on campus are, relatively speaking, palaces.

Another is that administration costs have soared. When I began teaching
at the university, one man was the provost (i.e. VP in charge of
academics) and he had one secretary. The provost now has an 11 person
staff - three associate provosts, three various directors, etc.

Some of the reason for that may be the ever-increasing paperwork burden.
Governments and accrediting agencies (there are many) all impose
unfunded mandates. Somebody has to do all the work of generating those
mountains of forms and documents.

Some of the reason is the rise of special interest groups. One upon a
time, there were no administrators charged with looking out for the
special needs of veterans, women, dark-skinned people, people with
varying sexual preferences, etc. Now, if you can produce evidence you
are somehow different, you have a shot at getting a special campus
office to look out for you.

Once upon a time, athletics was somehow subsidiary to academics and
laboratory equipment. Now I'm told (by a former athlete, who complains
about the senselessness of it!) that athletic locker rooms all have
super-comfortable lounges, wide screen TVs and many other amenities.
Athletic budgets have grown far faster than academic budgets. (BTW, at
the same time, I know faculty who had to sneak in on a weekend and paint
their own conference room because it was such an embarrassment when
hosting visitors. Supposedly, the university couldn't afford to paint it.)

And once upon a time, the state actually thought education was a good
investment. State support for schools of all levels has plummeted, but
particularly for colleges and universities. But in our case, at least,
the governor brags that he's reduced the state budget. He's really just
passed the costs on to others in the state - and the profits to the
charter school businesses. But strictly speaking, that's a
semi-separate topic.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:31:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/18/2015 10:14 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

But, the point is that the entire cost of my father's collage
education was born by his parents.

What happened?

Several things, I think.

One is that college campuses are vastly different places than when I
attended - at least, mine is. Just before I began attending, classes
were still held in old quonset huts. I had classes in old attics of
ancient houses on campus, or the pipe-filled basement of some utility
building. New buildings on campus are, relatively speaking, palaces.

Another is that administration costs have soared. When I began teaching
at the university, one man was the provost (i.e. VP in charge of
academics) and he had one secretary. The provost now has an 11 person
staff - three associate provosts, three various directors, etc.

Some of the reason for that may be the ever-increasing paperwork burden.
Governments and accrediting agencies (there are many) all impose
unfunded mandates. Somebody has to do all the work of generating those
mountains of forms and documents.

Some of the reason is the rise of special interest groups. One upon a
time, there were no administrators charged with looking out for the
special needs of veterans, women, dark-skinned people, people with
varying sexual preferences, etc. Now, if you can produce evidence you
are somehow different, you have a shot at getting a special campus
office to look out for you.

Once upon a time, athletics was somehow subsidiary to academics and
laboratory equipment. Now I'm told (by a former athlete, who complains
about the senselessness of it!) that athletic locker rooms all have
super-comfortable lounges, wide screen TVs and many other amenities.
Athletic budgets have grown far faster than academic budgets. (BTW, at
the same time, I know faculty who had to sneak in on a weekend and paint
their own conference room because it was such an embarrassment when
hosting visitors. Supposedly, the university couldn't afford to paint it.)

And once upon a time, the state actually thought education was a good
investment. State support for schools of all levels has plummeted, but
particularly for colleges and universities. But in our case, at least,
the governor brags that he's reduced the state budget. He's really just
passed the costs on to others in the state - and the profits to the
charter school businesses. But strictly speaking, that's a
semi-separate topic.

It appears that collage, "a place to go to learn something", has now
morphed into Collage, a place that I can't afford to go to".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/18/2015 11:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2015 10:14 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

But, the point is that the entire cost of my father's collage
education was born by his parents.

What happened?

Several things, I think.

One is that college campuses are vastly different places
than when I attended - at least, mine is. Just before I
began attending, classes were still held in old quonset
huts. I had classes in old attics of ancient houses on
campus, or the pipe-filled basement of some utility
building. New buildings on campus are, relatively speaking,
palaces.

Another is that administration costs have soared. When I
began teaching at the university, one man was the provost
(i.e. VP in charge of academics) and he had one secretary.
The provost now has an 11 person staff - three associate
provosts, three various directors, etc.

Some of the reason for that may be the ever-increasing
paperwork burden. Governments and accrediting agencies
(there are many) all impose unfunded mandates. Somebody has
to do all the work of generating those mountains of forms
and documents.

Some of the reason is the rise of special interest groups.
One upon a time, there were no administrators charged with
looking out for the special needs of veterans, women,
dark-skinned people, people with varying sexual preferences,
etc. Now, if you can produce evidence you are somehow
different, you have a shot at getting a special campus
office to look out for you.

Once upon a time, athletics was somehow subsidiary to
academics and laboratory equipment. Now I'm told (by a
former athlete, who complains about the senselessness of
it!) that athletic locker rooms all have super-comfortable
lounges, wide screen TVs and many other amenities. Athletic
budgets have grown far faster than academic budgets. (BTW,
at the same time, I know faculty who had to sneak in on a
weekend and paint their own conference room because it was
such an embarrassment when hosting visitors. Supposedly,
the university couldn't afford to paint it.)

And once upon a time, the state actually thought education
was a good investment. State support for schools of all
levels has plummeted, but particularly for colleges and
universities. But in our case, at least, the governor brags
that he's reduced the state budget. He's really just passed
the costs on to others in the state - and the profits to the
charter school businesses. But strictly speaking, that's a
semi-separate topic.


Frank, that's a well written overview. Since that aquarium
is now turned into fish soup I don't see a path forward.

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

On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 9:03:52 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/18/2015 11:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2015 10:14 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

But, the point is that the entire cost of my father's collage
education was born by his parents.

What happened?

Several things, I think.

One is that college campuses are vastly different places
than when I attended - at least, mine is. Just before I
began attending, classes were still held in old quonset
huts. I had classes in old attics of ancient houses on
campus, or the pipe-filled basement of some utility
building. New buildings on campus are, relatively speaking,
palaces.

Another is that administration costs have soared. When I
began teaching at the university, one man was the provost
(i.e. VP in charge of academics) and he had one secretary.
The provost now has an 11 person staff - three associate
provosts, three various directors, etc.

Some of the reason for that may be the ever-increasing
paperwork burden. Governments and accrediting agencies
(there are many) all impose unfunded mandates. Somebody has
to do all the work of generating those mountains of forms
and documents.

Some of the reason is the rise of special interest groups.
One upon a time, there were no administrators charged with
looking out for the special needs of veterans, women,
dark-skinned people, people with varying sexual preferences,
etc. Now, if you can produce evidence you are somehow
different, you have a shot at getting a special campus
office to look out for you.

Once upon a time, athletics was somehow subsidiary to
academics and laboratory equipment. Now I'm told (by a
former athlete, who complains about the senselessness of
it!) that athletic locker rooms all have super-comfortable
lounges, wide screen TVs and many other amenities. Athletic
budgets have grown far faster than academic budgets. (BTW,
at the same time, I know faculty who had to sneak in on a
weekend and paint their own conference room because it was
such an embarrassment when hosting visitors. Supposedly,
the university couldn't afford to paint it.)

And once upon a time, the state actually thought education
was a good investment. State support for schools of all
levels has plummeted, but particularly for colleges and
universities. But in our case, at least, the governor brags
that he's reduced the state budget. He's really just passed
the costs on to others in the state - and the profits to the
charter school businesses. But strictly speaking, that's a
semi-separate topic.


Frank, that's a well written overview. Since that aquarium
is now turned into fish soup I don't see a path forward.

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

agree...time for The Tour of Bonne Dune...