casette shifting, again

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 10:23:11 PM UTC-5, Emanuel Berg wrote:
FYI I've had it with this newsgroup. For once,
let me come with a couple of insults.
Mine aren't as, eh, "subtle" as yours.
Ralph Barone, Frank Krygowski, and
John B Slocom, you are all a bunch of cowards
hiding behind your computers, taking
a ridiculous amount of pride in understanding
how *a bike* works. Too bad you are all so old
and wise, otherwise we could have had an
international meeting were I would gladly knock
your teeth out. BTW could you fight even in
your twenties Frank? Were you that much of
a "polymath" even then?

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Good! Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!

Cheers

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 10:43:29 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:20:42 -0800 (PST), 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.

-- Jay Beattie.

One of the things I notices in the reference was that the gun had been
"de-militarized" and that "was restored by Preston to working order".
The term "de-militarized", at least as used by the U.S.A.F., means
that the weapon is modified to a point that it cannot be fired, and
cannot be repaired. In small arms usually by cutting the receiver and
barrel into at least two parts, usually with a cutting torch.

cheers,

John B.

I read the Preston put in 8oz. more powder than was the recommended load and was told that if he fired that cartridge it'd blow up the gun. Preston was also persuaded to take out more insurance due to that overloaded cartridge.

Cheers

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 21:39:19 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 10:43:29 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:20:42 -0800 (PST), 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.

-- Jay Beattie.

One of the things I notices in the reference was that the gun had been
"de-militarized" and that "was restored by Preston to working order".
The term "de-militarized", at least as used by the U.S.A.F., means
that the weapon is modified to a point that it cannot be fired, and
cannot be repaired. In small arms usually by cutting the receiver and
barrel into at least two parts, usually with a cutting torch.

cheers,

John B.

I read the Preston put in 8oz. more powder than was the recommended load and was told that if he fired that cartridge it'd blow up the gun. Preston was also persuaded to take out more insurance due to that overloaded cartridge.


Yes, I read that part too. I used to hand load for varmint rifles and
of course we were always trying for that little extra speed, but we
were also careful to inspect cartridge cases for signs of over
pressure. I simply can't imagine anyone just shoveling in 8 ounces of
extra powder. Particularly after someone "in the business" told not
to.

But the part about extra money because he knew he was going to die...
sort of like shooting yourself in the foot, but perhaps we can make up
a class action suit for all of us who know we are going to die. I
understand that lawyers like suits with a whole hoard of claimants.

cheers,

John B.

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 04:23:09 +0100, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

FYI I've had it with this newsgroup. For once,
let me come with a couple of insults.
Mine aren't as, eh, "subtle" as yours.
Ralph Barone, Frank Krygowski, and
John B Slocom, you are all a bunch of cowards
hiding behind your computers, taking
a ridiculous amount of pride in understanding
how *a bike* works. Too bad you are all so old
and wise, otherwise we could have had an
international meeting were I would gladly knock
your teeth out. BTW could you fight even in
your twenties Frank? Were you that much of
a "polymath" even then?

Hardly. Frank is a Professional Engineer and a retired collage
professor. I am retired from managing a company that in its last years
was billing 10 million dollars a year. Mr. Barone I'm sorry to say I
know nothing about.

Me? Principal Engineer at a large electric utility. 30 years experience in
electrical power engineering. Not retired, but the option is coming up
soon. Oh, and I ride a bike occasionally, but not often enough.

PS: Sorry I didn't call you up last time I was in Vasteras. You could have
knocked my teeth out then and saved yourself a bunch of airfare.

But your offer to "knock your teeth out" rather says it all, doesn't
it. You don't know and you are apparently unable to learn so you fall
back on physical threats.

Is this what you learned in your 6 years at collage? Rather a waste of
time, I would have to say, as I know chaps that never learned to read
or write that are quite capable of knocking your teeth out if that is
how you want to play.

cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 10:15:12 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:53:29 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 15:59:21 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

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.

It might be correct if they care comparing the 6.8mm ammunition with
the typical shaped charge tank rounds at the maximum effective range
of the tank round. Tank rounds intentionally fly at low velocities so
that the round remains intact on impact for a sufficiently long time
for the Munroe Effect to work. I'm too lazy to run the numbers, but
my guess(tm) is that the delivered energy of a slow tank round might
be approximately the same as the much higher velocity 6.8mm round.
The army hasn't disclosed the exact cartridge that will be used in the
new automatic rifle, but it looks like the muzzle energy will be about
2,100 joules with a 16 inch (410mm) barrel. At identical ranges, the
6.8mm bullet will still be traveling quite fast, while the tank round
will have slowed considerably.

"6.8mm Remington SPC"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8mm_Remington_SPC

"High-explosive anti-tank warhead"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-explosive_anti-tank_warhead

"Shaped Charge"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

But one of the common projectiles used in direct fire tank weapons are
APDS rounds. The 120 mm L11 gun in the Chieftain tank way back in 1960
had a muzzle velocity of 1370 M/S or 4,452.5 ft/sec. The more modern
stuff like the General Dynamics KEW-A1 has a muzzle velocity of 1,740
m/s or 5,700 ft/sec.

APDS is "armor piercing discarding sabot" rounds which use the kinetic
energy of a tungsten penetrator to punch holes in the armor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_discarding_sabot
To maximize the kinetic energy, these rounds fly at the highest
possible muzzle velocity. In terms of kinetic energy, such APDS
rounds deliver far more kinetic energy than could possibly be
delivered by a 6.8mm rifle.

I was referring to older HEAT (high explosive anti-tank) rounds, which
did not have a penetrator and used the Munroe Effect to burn a hole in
the armor. Something more like an RPG (rocket propelled grenade):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-explosive_anti-tank_warhead
However, I couldn't find any modern examples of such rounds being
fired from a tank, so this type of ammunition is either obsolete, or
I'm totally wrong about the comparison.

Muzzle velocity of the 6.8 Remington (24 in bbl) is in the high 2,000
ft/sec to low 3,000 ft/sec range depending on bullet weight (110 grain
bullet = ~2,800 ft/sec.). This velocity range has been attainable in
rifles for generations, the 7mm Remington, that dates back to 196? had
a muzzle velocity of 3,500 ft/sec with 110 grain bullet.

Note: The velocity of the bullet or round at the end of the effective
range is what delivers the energy. Muzzle velocity is of interest,
but the damage is done at the other end of the flight path.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 23:24:39 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 10:15:12 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:53:29 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 15:59:21 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

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.

It might be correct if they care comparing the 6.8mm ammunition with
the typical shaped charge tank rounds at the maximum effective range
of the tank round. Tank rounds intentionally fly at low velocities so
that the round remains intact on impact for a sufficiently long time
for the Munroe Effect to work. I'm too lazy to run the numbers, but
my guess(tm) is that the delivered energy of a slow tank round might
be approximately the same as the much higher velocity 6.8mm round.
The army hasn't disclosed the exact cartridge that will be used in the
new automatic rifle, but it looks like the muzzle energy will be about
2,100 joules with a 16 inch (410mm) barrel. At identical ranges, the
6.8mm bullet will still be traveling quite fast, while the tank round
will have slowed considerably.

"6.8mm Remington SPC"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8mm_Remington_SPC

"High-explosive anti-tank warhead"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-explosive_anti-tank_warhead

"Shaped Charge"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

But one of the common projectiles used in direct fire tank weapons are
APDS rounds. The 120 mm L11 gun in the Chieftain tank way back in 1960
had a muzzle velocity of 1370 M/S or 4,452.5 ft/sec. The more modern
stuff like the General Dynamics KEW-A1 has a muzzle velocity of 1,740
m/s or 5,700 ft/sec.

APDS is "armor piercing discarding sabot" rounds which use the kinetic
energy of a tungsten penetrator to punch holes in the armor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_discarding_sabot
To maximize the kinetic energy, these rounds fly at the highest
possible muzzle velocity. In terms of kinetic energy, such APDS
rounds deliver far more kinetic energy than could possibly be
delivered by a 6.8mm rifle.

Given that the velocity is much higher then that of a rifle and the
projectile weight is many times heavier it is assumed that the kinetic
energy must be much higher.

Which is, of course why canon were invented :-)


I was referring to older HEAT (high explosive anti-tank) rounds, which
did not have a penetrator and used the Munroe Effect to burn a hole in
the armor. Something more like an RPG (rocket propelled grenade):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-explosive_anti-tank_warhead
However, I couldn't find any modern examples of such rounds being
fired from a tank, so this type of ammunition is either obsolete, or
I'm totally wrong about the comparison.

Muzzle velocity of the 6.8 Remington (24 in bbl) is in the high 2,000
ft/sec to low 3,000 ft/sec range depending on bullet weight (110 grain
bullet = ~2,800 ft/sec.). This velocity range has been attainable in
rifles for generations, the 7mm Remington, that dates back to 196? had
a muzzle velocity of 3,500 ft/sec with 110 grain bullet.

Note: The velocity of the bullet or round at the end of the effective
range is what delivers the energy. Muzzle velocity is of interest,
but the damage is done at the other end of the flight path.

True, but generally rather difficult to measure velocity of a
projectile way out yonder. Much easier to measure it close in and
calculate the probably velocity a half mile away.

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.

cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 6:04:07 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/15/2018 7:20 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.

Interesting to me that Preston's family wants extra money because
Preston "knew he was going to die."

I know I'm going to die, too. Jay, can you get me some money because of
that? I'll donate it to Tom! ;-)


Well, pre-death pain and suffering is a thing -- not much of a thing in Oregon because of the monetary cap on damages in wrongful death cases. Anyway, I would prefer to die all at once rather than slowly. Then again, I probably wouldn't be shooting re-loaded tank rounds. It's kind of like the cheap Chinese CF wheel thing.

Like I said, I just had piece of an insurance issue and didn't get too involved in the liability end of things. I did have a cannon case, though. Another sad over-pressure case -- a guy who ran a gun shop and who was a gun smith bought "blank" cannons and bored them out so they could be fired. He was an amazing machinist and made a good product if you didn't over-load it. https://www.tillamookheadlightherald...5802a145d.html

Another product added to my no-buy list.


-- Jay Beattie.

On 12/15/2018 4:01 PM, 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


That's not an insult. No offense was intended.

I have written successful routines in older languages, even
passed a State audit of my payroll program (1983), but I am
not an expert in programming.

I do have a small, rough understanding such that when I hire
a programmer I can describe the job, listen to his analyses
of various approaches to it and converse despite being
incompetent to actually write it myself.

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

On 12/15/2018 5:42 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 23:01:48 +0100, 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.


That is a silly answer. The fact that you spent more then six years at
a school doesn't mean that you know everything. In fact that is quite
evident in your questions about bicycles posted here.


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. the fact is that you don't understand enough about
bicycles to even use the proper nomenclature for the various parts,
never mind understanding how they work. Rather like me coming to your
country and then being amazed that the people I talk with don't
understand what I say.

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.


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.




[1] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/hs-li...ort/report.pdf

cheers,

John B.



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

On 12/15/2018 5:52 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 15:59:21 -0600, 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.


Interesting. First we argue that the old .30 cal was too big and heavy
so the 5.6 being lighter and faster is better and now we are saying
that the 6.8, although larger and heavier, is better. At this rate we
will be back to the 7.62mm :-)

What's next? A return to the 14.7mm?


The Pentagon spent over 15 years on this project (Yes,
everyone agrees that they waste half their budget but all
the other Departments waste 99% so here we are.)

Having followed this for a few years, I was as dismissive as
you at first. But the resolution is actually pretty well
formed given all the various concerns/parameters.

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