[OT] engineer comments please

On 5/21/2021 12:16 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

John, there you go again with your asinine cutting and pasting idiotic Google crap that doesn't bother to inform a moron that high quality steel must be rapidly cooled in the process to prevent crystallization...

Where did you get that idea? "Prevent crystallization"?

See
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshel...ures_of_Metals


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 21 May 2021 15:52:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/21/2021 12:16 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

John, there you go again with your asinine cutting and pasting idiotic Google crap that doesn't bother to inform a moron that high quality steel must be rapidly cooled in the process to prevent crystallization...

Where did you get that idea? "Prevent crystallization"?

See
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshel...ures_of_Metals

It is rather obvious that the poor boy forgot to take his medication
today.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 21 May 2021 09:16:49 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

John, there you go again with your asinine cutting and pasting idiotic Google crap that doesn't bother to inform a moron that high quality steel must be rapidly cooled in the process to prevent crystallization and that water is the method of choice.

Prevent crystallization? Quenching steel is mostly crystallized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempering_(metallurgy)
To improve on the crystal structure and create more regular bonds
across the crystal lattice structure, the steel is annealed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_(metallurgy)
By adding small quantities of carbon, vanadium, manganese, chromium,
silicon, nickel, etc, you can produce various desirable
characteristics such as springiness, heat tolerance, oxidation
resistance, machinability, maintain an edge, etc. The way these
elements work is they fit into the iron crystal structure to form more
regular bonds for hardness, sliding shear lines for springiness, or
various compromises such as found in bicycle frame tubing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloy_steel
https://www.meadmetals.com/blog/steel-alloys
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_531
No matter what the alloy, they all form crystalline structures, except
for amorphous steels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_metal
With the aid of a cutoff saw, hand grit polisher, acid or alkaline
etch, optional contrast dye, and a 50x to 1000x microscope,
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/microscopes/Olympus%20BH/Olympus%20BH.jpg
you can see the grain boundaries:
https://www.google.com/search?q=steel+grain+structure+microscope&tbm=isch
https://www.struers.com/en/Knowledge/Materials/Metallic-grain-structures
https://www.google.com/search?q=ASTM+E112&tbm=isch

Is there some reason you feel compelled to make your own idiocy so public?

Is there some reason you feel the need to insult those who demonstrate
your numerous mistakes, which seems to be most everyone? Feel free to
insult me. I've been fully vaccinated.

Wikipedia references are included primarily to irritate you.
Personally, I like Wikipedia. It has its problems with controversial
topics, but does VERY well with generally accepted science and
technology. If you don't like Wikipedia references, what would you
prefer? These?
https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/videos/topic/how-things-work
https://www.howstuffworks.com

Oh wait. You previously announced that you would not reply to any of
my questions. That's great because it saves me the considerable
effort wasted in fixing your mistakes.


--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 21 May 2021 09:16:49 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:22:41 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2021 07:21:21 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 6:55:18 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2021 16:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 3:46:45 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2021 08:50:27 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/18/2021 10:17 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 07:19:43 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Monday, May 17, 2021 at 11:12:44 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/17/2021 9:07 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

snip
As you rely on being able to stop on the line and you need to take into
account that passenger are allowed to walk inside the train, you cannot
bank a 200mph line like a roller-coaster.

In Germany, we allow a maximum bank of 160mm (i.e. bank angle = inv sin
(160/1435) ) and a maximum lateral acceleration of 0.85 m/s, resulting
in a minimum radius of just over 4000m at 300 kph.
Since the HSR systems are usually completely separate from freight or
lower-speed trains, the countries building them certainly had the
opportunity to go to a wider gauge than what they were using for their
other railways. But none did. There was no upside in doing so. Russia
uses a wider gauge for both regular rail and HSR. The turn radii
minimums are longer for HSR, but that would be the case regardless of
the gauge. New TGV construction is 7000m, older construction is 4000m,
same as in Germany.

Tom really needs to embark on a world tour to explain to all these
countries why they need to rebuild all their HSR lines to a wider gauge.
I have been waiting for you to tell us what your training is in and what experience you've had at anything other than Marxism.

There you go Tommy, using then there big words. But tell us Tommy just
what is "Marxism"? Can you explain it? Or is it just another word that
you've learned to spell but can't explain?


No one can explain it, least of all Marx who was an
atrocious writer, exceeded only by his muddled thinking.
Hence 100+ years of revisionist crap trying to make his
oracle-like meanderings into some sort of ethos. The results
are obvious.
Nope, you are wrong. I just looked it up and Marxism is:

"a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist
interpretation of historical development, better known as historical
materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well
as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation"

As usual, you don't know diddly-squat about anything so you just cut and paste from Google. You and Frank are two of a kind.
You are correct, in part. Both Frank and I actually research many of
our posts - research - systematic investigation to establish facts -
while you just announce some weird theory, disregarding all facts, and
when challenged you then either change the subject or resort to
insults to "prove your point".

I'm sure that if you respond to this post you will be asking how wide
the Mississippi river is or some other totally inane question to try
and cover up the fact that while you use "Marxism" as an insult you
really don't know what the term means.

Neither you nor Frank research ****. You because you don't know how to and Frank because he will use anything he can find that would contradict me. Since the actual accuracy of the net varies from 60% to as low as your comments with perhaps 2% accuracy, that puts you in a very low class. Such as your story changing from "I worked AT the Krakatau Steel Plant and using that as giving you authority to tell us how I was wrong about the manufacture of steel not requiring water, to "I helped build" which is another thing altogether. The problem with you two is that you simply die with envy that actual hard work can be more successful that anything else. Maybe you were a hard worker, I wouldn't know, but unless it has an objective in mind it is simply killing time. Franks is actually afraid of hard work.
Tommy no body contradicts you, they simply point your errors and your
lies.

All you have to do is stop telling lies and learn enough about your
subject not to make mistakes and "you'll be sweet"

For example, you talk, above, about, "the manufacture of steel". Now
when you say that I, and probably others, assume that you are talking
about the making of steel, which is an alloy of iron and carbon, which
is made by "smelting" iron ore which was done in several ways
historically, but in modern usage by use of a "blast furnace" where
the iron ore is melted in conjunction with fuel and flux and liquid
iron with a high carbon content is tapped off the bottom of the
furnace. Temperatures in the furnace may reach as high as 2000 °C to
2300 °C (3600 °F to 4200 °F).

As the blast furnace produces an iron alloy with a very high carbon
content it is further processed usually, since 1948, by a process
where oxygen is blown through the molten high carbon "iron" to remove
excess carbon.

Now tell us where water is used in processes that work at temperatures
of 3,000 - 4,000 degrees (F).

Now, I'm sure that you will, in response, do one of three things. (1)
you will change the subject, (2) you will reply with insults, or, (3)
you just won't reply at all, or in other words ignore it and hope it
goes away.

John, there you go again with your asinine cutting and pasting idiotic Google crap that doesn't bother to inform a moron that high quality steel must be rapidly cooled in the process to prevent crystallization and that water is the method of choice.

Is there some reason you feel compelled to make your own idiocy so public?

Steel, "rapidly cooled in the process to prevent crystallization"? Tom
you are either the most colossal liar I've ever seen (and I've seen
some big ones) or you are simply ignorant of any process regarding
steel.

So tell me thing Tommy Boy. if fast cooling prevents crystallization,
then why when you anneal steel you cool it slowly? Or do you believe
that annealed, i.e., softer condition of the steel is caused by
crystallization?

Tom, I'll have to retract my previous statement that you are a big
liar. I now believe that you probably aren't deliberately lying and
all you nonsense posting is simply because you are the stupidest
person posting on Usenet.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Gentlemen, gentlemen! This forum has a long and ignominious history of bullying and ad hominem, but the Chinese pandemic has made it infinitely worse with boredom and frustration and lack of human intercourse. We can all do better. -- Andre Jute

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 11:59:18 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 2:50:34 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

No one can explain it, least of all Marx who was an
atrocious writer, exceeded only by his muddled thinking.
Hence 100+ years of revisionist crap trying to make his
oracle-like meanderings into some sort of ethos. The results
are obvious.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
No one in his right mind pretends to explain what Marxism *is*, as Slow Johnny will discover the moment he starts looking for an explanation rather than just a quick hit to throw at Tom.

It is easy to explain what Marxism isn't. It isn't what Lenin and after him Stalin practiced. That was just straightforward gangsterism, of which Mr Putin practices a purer and arguably more honest version, without the ideological claptrap.

Of course ideologies change over time. I once wrote a never refuted -- because I had my duck lined up and no one could argue with my facts -- article which has since disappeared from the net that Mrs Thatcher was a far, far better Marxist than Karl Marx ever was -- she gave the workers the houses they lived in, previously the property of local government who used the houses as a Damocles' sword over the heads of the tenants.

But Critical Race Theory or any other kind of Deconstructivism, and a thousand other -isms isn't Marxism either. I could probably make a case that even in Marx's own time, Marxism wasn't what he tried to say it was. (He developed Marxism with data that was well obsolete , he knew it, and he didn't care.)

***

I can however make a good stab at the never-ending appeal of Marxism in its various miscegenations to immature minds and other control freaks.

Who, except mature people of goodwill and a grasp of consequences, wouldn't adore a theory of godliness above mere mortals that is so badly defined that any desired meaning can be poured into the clumsy words that thick ideologues and dumb (literally) demagogues and tone-deaf maximum leaders of the masses.

Marxism is what any monkey on the left (recently to the left) of the Donkey Party says it is.

Andre Jute
Definitely a critical thinker
Not even the most argent ideologue says anything about the application of Maxism. Only the most unobtainable crap possible - "we should all share in the good luck of those who actually work for it because without us none of the workers could achieve success." The fact is that NO ONE gives up what they work for except at the point of a gun. This invariably leads to total dictatorship with merely the name of socialism. Perhaps they will throw a bone to the dog and give extremely poorly contrived "socialized medicine" but little of that. Without the capitalistic advances of the west medicine in the socialized countries would still be in the band-aids and mercurochrome stages.

On Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 12:01:52 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Gentlemen, gentlemen! This forum has a long and ignominious history of bullying and ad hominem, but the Chinese pandemic has made it infinitely worse with boredom and frustration and lack of human intercourse. We can all do better. -- Andre Jute
None of this would change Jeff or John, when they don't understand common chemistry there's no use in discussing anything with them. Rapid quenching prevents large crystalline structures from forming. Annealing is at a temperature far below where crystals would form but they will move about in the structure so that they are now aligned in a structure. This is a "softening" process that lends ductility to a metal.