Eddy Merckx Elite

On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 9:30:23 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 9:09:25 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 2:52:37 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 6:36:21 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 7:17:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/11/2021 12:43 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op donderdag 11 maart 2021 om 17:09:32 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".
I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.

That is a too simple conclusion. I mentioned this earlier:

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...000-comparison
Well, there are always more details one can consider. Care to summarize
which further details you think need mention?
Well. I designed the first full time working heart-lung machine and the respiratory gas analyzer both of which you will no doubt make use of in the very near future. From you comments you nearly have a heart attack when you make your unfounded assertions and it turns out that I have wide experience in those fields and can see you for the fool you are.
No you did not design the first full-time working heart-lung machine. CBPs have been around for 50 years, and no, not just machines that function for a few minutes. Read this book: https://www.amazon.com/King-Hearts-M.../dp/0609807242 It's a great read -- and you will learn that CBPs capable of use in complex heart surgeries were working reliably in the 1960s -- when you were changing oil on airplanes. Recall Christiaan Barnard? 1967 . . . heart transplant?

If you did anything noteworthy, you would have patents, and from my brief research of the USTPO filings, you don't have even one. I just wrapped up a ride with a guy who has maybe 50. I think he gets a patent every time he folds a piece of paper. Anybody who did what you claim would have patent royalties up the yin-yang or at least inventor credits.
Jay, what do you know about heart lung machines, and engineering or the medical facts behind them. I will wait for you to concoct a really good line.
Tom, answer the question. How did you design a machine that was in regular use since the 1960s? Did you develop a new iteration, like one with casters on it? Your pomposity is staggering and yet you can point to nothing with your name on it. Even my dad had patents, and he was just tinkering in the garage after his day job as a pharmacist and chemist. https://patents.google.com/patent/US2792247 I mean really. If you developed anything noteworthy, you would have an inventor credit. There is no corroboration whatsoever of any of your claims apart from your own statements. How are we to judge the truth of anything you say?

Tell everyone here why Jeff isn't carrying dozens of patents on his designs? Why do you not even have a passing understanding of business?

On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 10:09:02 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 9:30:23 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 9:09:25 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 2:52:37 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 6:36:21 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 7:17:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/11/2021 12:43 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op donderdag 11 maart 2021 om 17:09:32 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".
I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.

That is a too simple conclusion. I mentioned this earlier:

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...000-comparison
Well, there are always more details one can consider. Care to summarize
which further details you think need mention?
Well. I designed the first full time working heart-lung machine and the respiratory gas analyzer both of which you will no doubt make use of in the very near future. From you comments you nearly have a heart attack when you make your unfounded assertions and it turns out that I have wide experience in those fields and can see you for the fool you are.
No you did not design the first full-time working heart-lung machine. CBPs have been around for 50 years, and no, not just machines that function for a few minutes. Read this book: https://www.amazon.com/King-Hearts-M.../dp/0609807242 It's a great read -- and you will learn that CBPs capable of use in complex heart surgeries were working reliably in the 1960s -- when you were changing oil on airplanes. Recall Christiaan Barnard? 1967 . . . heart transplant?

If you did anything noteworthy, you would have patents, and from my brief research of the USTPO filings, you don't have even one. I just wrapped up a ride with a guy who has maybe 50. I think he gets a patent every time he folds a piece of paper. Anybody who did what you claim would have patent royalties up the yin-yang or at least inventor credits.
Jay, what do you know about heart lung machines, and engineering or the medical facts behind them. I will wait for you to concoct a really good line.
Tom, answer the question. How did you design a machine that was in regular use since the 1960s? Did you develop a new iteration, like one with casters on it? Your pomposity is staggering and yet you can point to nothing with your name on it. Even my dad had patents, and he was just tinkering in the garage after his day job as a pharmacist and chemist. https://patents.google.com/patent/US2792247 I mean really. If you developed anything noteworthy, you would have an inventor credit. There is no corroboration whatsoever of any of your claims apart from your own statements. How are we to judge the truth of anything you say?
Jay, because they WEREN'T in regular use. They were constant flow devices and not cardiac-like pumps. They were only good for bare minutes because unless you pump in the heart-like rhythm and pressure the entire venous system rapidly fails. Now explain to me what you know about medical instrumentation. The device I did the digital design and programming on could be used not just for hours but days.

Do you just make this stuff up? A heart lung machine does not pulsate like a heart. It uses a roller pump or a centrifugal pump. How do I know this? Its on the f****** internet. Any dope can look that up.

Show me one thing on the internet indicating that heart lung machines pump blood in a cardiac-like fashion. Anything.

Heart lung machines have been in use for 50 years. https://www.ahajournals..org/doi/pdf...aha.108.830174

I think you're talking about an ECMO machine? If so, I doubt you designed it since you can't even describe it. Is this what you're trying to talk about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrac...ne_oxygenation Even ECMO uses a standard blood pump.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 11:20:55 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 10:09:02 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 9:30:23 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 9:09:25 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 2:52:37 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 6:36:21 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 7:17:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/11/2021 12:43 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op donderdag 11 maart 2021 om 17:09:32 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".
I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.

That is a too simple conclusion. I mentioned this earlier:

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...000-comparison
Well, there are always more details one can consider. Care to summarize
which further details you think need mention?
Well. I designed the first full time working heart-lung machine and the respiratory gas analyzer both of which you will no doubt make use of in the very near future. From you comments you nearly have a heart attack when you make your unfounded assertions and it turns out that I have wide experience in those fields and can see you for the fool you are.
No you did not design the first full-time working heart-lung machine. CBPs have been around for 50 years, and no, not just machines that function for a few minutes. Read this book: https://www.amazon.com/King-Hearts-M.../dp/0609807242 It's a great read -- and you will learn that CBPs capable of use in complex heart surgeries were working reliably in the 1960s -- when you were changing oil on airplanes. Recall Christiaan Barnard? 1967 . . . heart transplant?

If you did anything noteworthy, you would have patents, and from my brief research of the USTPO filings, you don't have even one. I just wrapped up a ride with a guy who has maybe 50. I think he gets a patent every time he folds a piece of paper. Anybody who did what you claim would have patent royalties up the yin-yang or at least inventor credits.
Jay, what do you know about heart lung machines, and engineering or the medical facts behind them. I will wait for you to concoct a really good line.
Tom, answer the question. How did you design a machine that was in regular use since the 1960s? Did you develop a new iteration, like one with casters on it? Your pomposity is staggering and yet you can point to nothing with your name on it. Even my dad had patents, and he was just tinkering in the garage after his day job as a pharmacist and chemist. https://patents..google.com/patent/US2792247 I mean really. If you developed anything noteworthy, you would have an inventor credit. There is no corroboration whatsoever of any of your claims apart from your own statements. How are we to judge the truth of anything you say?
Jay, because they WEREN'T in regular use. They were constant flow devices and not cardiac-like pumps. They were only good for bare minutes because unless you pump in the heart-like rhythm and pressure the entire venous system rapidly fails. Now explain to me what you know about medical instrumentation. The device I did the digital design and programming on could be used not just for hours but days.
Do you just make this stuff up? A heart lung machine does not pulsate like a heart. It uses a roller pump or a centrifugal pump. How do I know this? Its on the f****** internet. Any dope can look that up.

Show me one thing on the internet indicating that heart lung machines pump blood in a cardiac-like fashion. Anything.

Heart lung machines have been in use for 50 years. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/...aha.108.830174

I think you're talking about an ECMO machine? If so, I doubt you designed it since you can't even describe it. Is this what you're trying to talk about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrac...ne_oxygenation Even ECMO uses a standard blood pump.

Have your way Jay. I'm sure that you should have a heart operation on one of those.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 10:10:56 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Tell everyone here why Jeff isn't carrying dozens of patents on
his designs? Why do you not even have a passing understanding
of business?

All you have to do is ask. I've never designed anything that was
deemed patentable by my employers. There were a few that might have
been patentable, but most of my designs were applications of existing
technology. The most innovative thing I designed was to convert a
bundle of cables between the old Intech M360 direction finder, to a
single coax cable for the USCG AN/SRD-22 direction finder.
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/AN-SRD-22/
There were some discussions about patenting that idea, but since the
marine radio division of Intech had no experience, time, or funds for
obtaining a patent, it was decided not to patent it. The rest of the
industry eventually copied my idea. I also designed a low distortion
two-tone SSB test generator, which might have been patentable.
However, since this was never intended to be anything beyond a tool
for marine radio dealers, it was decided not to patent it.

The rest of my "design" work after about 1981(?) was fixing and
cleaning up other engineers designs. Mostly, it was damage control
caused by key people leaving the company, failed deadlines, internal
politics, and management failures. None of the designs I introduced
would be considered innovative. At the same time, I was supplementing
my income fixing computers and doing consulting, neither of which
involved patents. I did get involved in two patent infringement
cases, but it wasn't over anything I had designed.

Now, I have a question. Why do you believe that having a patent
portfolio constitutes an indication of superior competence in
determining whether you know anything about heart-lung machines?
Expanding the question, why do you seem to believe that competence in
an unrelated field somehow confers competence in the current topic of
discussion? This is a persistent theme in your postings and is a
monumental waste of everyone's time.

What was the exact name of the company where you designed the
heart-lung machine and over what period did you work for them so I fit
it into your resume timeline.

BTW, nice change of topic.


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

On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 11:20:53 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

Do you just make this stuff up? A heart lung machine does not pulsate
like a heart. It uses a roller pump or a centrifugal pump. How do I
know this? Its on the f****** internet. Any dope can look that up.

Two types of pumps. Centrifugal and roller, neither of which are
pulsating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiopulmonary_bypass#Centrifugal_pump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiopulmonary_bypass#Roller_pump

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

On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 11:33:03 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Have your way Jay. I'm sure that you should have a heart
operation on one of those.

Actually, I would recommend having a heart bypass operation should the
question arise. I was in rather bad shape at the time I needed a
triple bypass. I could barely run across the street without huffing
and puffing. Bicycle riding was impossible. I wrongly assumed that I
only needed to loose some weight, fix my diet, and do some more
exercise. After the bypass operation (Feb 2001), it was like turning
the clock back 15 years. I was initially weak from the surgery, but
most of my stamina had returned. I was riding my a bicycle after
about 6 months. The warranty on the work expired after 16 years, when
the grafted arteries became partly clogged with plaque, requiring the
installation of two stents (Nov 2018). Having seen the angiogram
photo from before the heart bypass, I'm certain that I would have died
in 2001 without the operation.


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

On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 12:29:35 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 11:20:53 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

Do you just make this stuff up? A heart lung machine does not pulsate
like a heart. It uses a roller pump or a centrifugal pump. How do I
know this? Its on the f****** internet. Any dope can look that up.
Two types of pumps. Centrifugal and roller, neither of which are
pulsating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiopulmonary_bypass#Centrifugal_pump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiopulmonary_bypass#Roller_pump

Have you bothered to actually read that article? The Roller pump is pretty obviously the one I was talking about. HOW ELSE do you think that you would get the pressure fluctuations that would give the same pressure variations as a pumping heart? Does it even occur to you that this thing is digitally driven to change speeds at the proper time? Apparently you are so busy showing your lack of IQ that you didn't even read that article which said what I have been saying. I don't remember the details? That was 30 years ago. Back when you were impressing everyone with your vast knowledge of looking on the Internet.

It plainly stated the the centrifugal pump was temporary. So did that pass up your vastly superior attention span?

On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 12:55:00 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 12:29:35 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 11:20:53 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

Do you just make this stuff up? A heart lung machine does not pulsate
like a heart. It uses a roller pump or a centrifugal pump. How do I
know this? Its on the f****** internet. Any dope can look that up.
Two types of pumps. Centrifugal and roller, neither of which are
pulsating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiopulmonary_bypass#Centrifugal_pump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiopulmonary_bypass#Roller_pump

Have you bothered to actually read that article? The Roller pump is
pretty obviously the one I was talking about. HOW ELSE do you think
that you would get the pressure fluctuations that would give the same
pressure variations as a pumping heart?

Yes, a roller pump can produce pulsing flow:
https://www.google.com/search?q=roller+pump+pulsatile+flow+heart+CPB
However, it's understandable that I didn't know the correct terms
(puslatile flow and CardioPulmonary Bypass). However, as the designer
of a heart-lung machine, one might expect you to know the correct term
or at least done some searching to jog your memory.

There have been studies which demonstrate that pulsatile flow is safe:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15202823/ (2004)

However, not everyone believes that pulsatile flow is necessary. For
example:
Cardiopulmonary bypass with physiological flow and pressure curves:
pulse is unnecessary!
https://academic.oup.com/ejcts/article/37/1/223/366625

What I haven't been able to find is which of the pump types is most
commonly used.

Does it even occur to you that this thing is digitally driven to
change speeds at the proper time?

Nope. Never crossed my mind. Instead of composing yet another
credibility challenge or character assassination, perhaps you could
instead spend the time providing some links worth reading on the
topic?

Apparently you are so busy showing your lack of IQ that you didn't
even read that article which said what I have been saying.

Which article that said what that you were saying? This one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiopulmonary_bypass#Roller_pump
I see nothing in the roller pump section that says anything about
pulsatile flow pumps.

I don't remember the details? That was 30 years ago. Back
when you were impressing everyone with your vast knowledge
of looking on the Internet.

You designed a heart-lung machine and forgot important details. That's
possible, but this is beginning to sound like the computer repairman
erased my hard disk drive (the dog ate my homework). Take your time,
do a little reading to refresh your memory, and provide us with
something better than an excuse.

It plainly stated the the centrifugal pump was temporary. So
did that pass up your vastly superior attention span?

Yes, it did. The very first line states that:
Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is a technique in which
a machine temporarily takes over the function of the
heart and lungs during surgery, maintaining the
circulation of blood and the oxygen content of the
patient's body.
The term "temporary" implies that it's used during surgery. Perhaps I
missed it, but are you talking about inventing a heart-lung machine
that is used for some purpose other than during surgery? If so, a URL
pointing to your design would be appreciated.



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

On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 13:24:04 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

My designs aren't patentable since they are the ideas and
property of my employers.

Have you looked at a patent, any patent?

The first search hit under CPB:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6979423B2/en?q=cardiopulmonary+bypass
Notice the line under the blue box which says "Inventor". That would
be where I would expect to find your name. Below that is the "Current
Assignee" field, which where I would expect to find the current owner.
At the bottom of the patent is "Legal Events" where I would expect to
find the history of any transfers of ownership.


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

On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 1:13:11 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 10:10:56 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Tell everyone here why Jeff isn't carrying dozens of patents on
his designs? Why do you not even have a passing understanding
of business?
All you have to do is ask. I've never designed anything that was
deemed patentable by my employers. There were a few that might have
been patentable, but most of my designs were applications of existing
technology. The most innovative thing I designed was to convert a
bundle of cables between the old Intech M360 direction finder, to a
single coax cable for the USCG AN/SRD-22 direction finder.
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/AN-SRD-22/
There were some discussions about patenting that idea, but since the
marine radio division of Intech had no experience, time, or funds for
obtaining a patent, it was decided not to patent it. The rest of the
industry eventually copied my idea. I also designed a low distortion
two-tone SSB test generator, which might have been patentable.
However, since this was never intended to be anything beyond a tool
for marine radio dealers, it was decided not to patent it.

The rest of my "design" work after about 1981(?) was fixing and
cleaning up other engineers designs. Mostly, it was damage control
caused by key people leaving the company, failed deadlines, internal
politics, and management failures. None of the designs I introduced
would be considered innovative. At the same time, I was supplementing
my income fixing computers and doing consulting, neither of which
involved patents. I did get involved in two patent infringement
cases, but it wasn't over anything I had designed.

Now, I have a question. Why do you believe that having a patent
portfolio constitutes an indication of superior competence in
determining whether you know anything about heart-lung machines?
Expanding the question, why do you seem to believe that competence in
an unrelated field somehow confers competence in the current topic of
discussion? This is a persistent theme in your postings and is a
monumental waste of everyone's time.

What was the exact name of the company where you designed the
heart-lung machine and over what period did you work for them so I fit
it into your resume timeline.

BTW, nice change of topic.

My designs aren't patentable since they are the ideas and property of my employers. That Jay is saying something like that gives me extremely strong doubts that he is a lawyer as he has claimed to be. It isn't as if that is rocket science or as if Werner Von Braun could patent the liquid fueled rocket.