Re:Spread the Engineering Knowledge
on
Pulse Jet Go-kart
·
· Score: 2
Beleive it or not for the best quick and dirty explaination of general engineering principles relating to beams I recommend " Your Engineered House" by Rex Roberts.
For any concept relating to the strength of items assembled from beams, and in engineering terms tubing is a beam, you can't do much better than " Racing and Sports Car Chassis Design" by Costin and Phipps. It's quite readable, and fascinating to anyone with an interest in classic tube frame racing cars. If nothing else by the time you're through with it you'll understand that you really CAN build an actual car frame with *broom handles* and hollow core door skins if you understand the principles.
For wood as it relates to engineering concepts, both how to use it and how to work with it, any good book on building boats from plywood will set you up to build ANYTHING from wood, including cars and airplanes. Books on building airplanes from plywood are good but less accesable to casual reading, but don't really do a better job of explaining things than the boat people do, who assume the reader is an " Average Joe." Boatbuilding includes a broad range of skills and topics from basic woodworking to fine cabinetry, from basic welding to precision machining, from working with stuff from the lumberyard, to the most cutting edge composites. Learn to design and build boats and you can design and build nearly anything.
It's also a popular subject so your local library ought to have literally dozens of good titles. Look for "Instant Boats" by Dynamite Payson for a good start.
Ok, it's a litte embaressing to say it, but the Time-Life series of books is unbeatable for getting the feel for nearly any subject.
Steve Smith Publishing makes available a whole range of books relating to performance and racing cars. These include practical guides to welding and fabrication for the "home" scratch builder of racing cars.
Oh, and I'd reccomend Eric Sloan's " A reverance for Wood," because I have, well, a reverence for wood. It is the most overlooked and mistakenly ignored engineering material.
Most important though is putting down the books and getting your hands dirty. 3/4" wooden dowels and 1 1/2" angle iron are free for the taking, ( broom handles and bed frames on trash day), do anything you can use these materials for and you are free to play without worrying much about cost. If you're willing to put in a bit of effort fairly large quantities of sheet metal can be salvaged from discarded refridgerators and other home appliances.
And of course bicycles. Discarded bicycles are a wealth of material.
PVC pipe is abundant and cheap, as is electrical conduit.
Become a mad scientist for a while and just " dick with shit."
Indeed, the kart is not safe, as the builder himself admits.
The point is that it isn't safe for the reasons that the builder points out, not the reasons that that were pointed out in the post that I responded to.
The little wheels happen to be nearly ideal for a gravel road. Indeed the little wheels are nearly identical to, and came from the same source, as the very first racing kart. That kart
was built by a man who made Indianapolis roadsters for a living. He knew what he was doing, and why. Some of his welds are messy, but don't have any obvious signs of porosity or other weld flaws that would dramatically effect strength. Indeed, I've seen bicycles with messier welds. They seem to be quite fashionable these days. By the way, I've spent the past several years living with a professional welder and have learned to tell the difference between a really weak weld and one that is just ugly. ( She makes locomotives by the way, real ones. From scratch.)
As a bicycle racer I've gotten a fair amount of road rash from spills much higher off the ground than this gentlman sits, and at much higher speeds than his vehicle is capable of, ( I can go up hills, his kart can't), with nothing to protect me than a wee bit of lycra spandex. It has yet to prove fatal.
His brake may appear dodgy to you but has proven to be a method quite acceptable over decades for karts chain driven by 5 h.p. engines. Indeed, if applied it would be sufficient to keep his kart from moving at all at the full thrust of his most powerful engine. In fact you could keep his kart from moving by the simple expedient of standing in front of it and HOLDING it still.
Did you read the article? Do you understand that the device has a FRACTION the performance capacity of a bicycle?
The photos have many points of reference to determine the cross section of the tubing. Chief among these is the diameter of the handcart tubing. That is 99.9999999 per cent certain to be 1". The axle bolts are also a reference for size. These are of a standard size for handcarts. If you want a reference for 1/2" look at his steering shaft. That is 1/2", which happens to be standard for a kart. Standard for a 2 ton car at 100 mph is only 1/4" larger than that.
By the way, wooden 2x3s would be quite safe for his vehicle. I've built quite safe and ridable pedal powered tricycles of higer performance than this gentlman's device from * 1x3s.* You would obviously be rather surprised at how strong and safe a cart frame can be if constructed from * discared broom handles harvested on trash day.* In know. I've DONE it to prove the point to sceptics. Quite ridable bicycles have been comercially produced from 1" diameter * bamboo.*
The tubing used by Telecom for it's maintance tents, last I inspected one, ( yes, I have inspected them, I'm a geek with a special curiosity for how tubing is joined for various puposes, you should see me ogling awnings), was 3/4" electrical conduit. Electrical conduit is MUCH weaker than mild steel. Electrical conduit is not made square. In any case I can tell it isn't of that poor quality be observing the cut off end of one of the tubes. Yes, I CAN tell just by looking at it in the picture.
Yes, the gentlman perhaps has a bit more bravery than is good for him. I'd advise him to install a standard racing kart seat before taking any more rides. At that point about the only way he could get as much as road rash, given the perfomance capability of his vehicle, would be to be hit by a meteor while he was driving it.
Oh yes, if I ever get pompous about spelling, which is something I never do, I promise to use a spell checker.
When I get pompous about engineering questions about which I have specific training and experience in I'll rely on engineering. The strength of steel isn't affected by my spelling.
Surely you know that attacking a poster's spelling when arguing a technical point is generally taken as both bad form and evidence that you have lost the argument? It's the equivelent of " Yo' Mama!" For reference I spell better in Spanish than English. A much more sensible language when it comes to spelling.
You DO remember that this is the * World Wide* Web, don't you?
Oh, " Sure I hope it dosn't happen" is either poor punctuation or poor grammer.
Indeed, I put well over 100 lbs of thrust onto my bicycle pedals and it's all I can do to maintain 30 mph over level ground for any period of time, despite a direct mechanical connection to the drive wheel of 98% efficeincy and a MUCH lower rolling resistence.
Not to mention the fact that I'd have to put over 100 lbs of weight in my panniers to match his all up weight.
On the whole he dosn't seem to be in any more danger than embaressment and annoying the people at the golf course. And perhaps some sheep.
And apparently you arn't an engineer either, using 'thin' as a synonym for 'small cross section,' a technical misuse of the language that an engineer would never make. When an engineer uses the word thin in reference to tubing he is refering to its wall thickness.
Assuming of course that he is using tubing. For all you know they could be solid bars. Of course as someone who has worked as an automotive engineer and custom builder of bicycle frames, racing suspension components and. . . yes, karts, I know that would be silly.
Givin the nature of his project and his obvious penchant for using common and inexpensive materials where such are appropriate it appears he has used common 1" mild steel square tubing such as can be obtained at any home improvement store.
If you were versed in such matters you would know that square tubing is more rigid in bending than round tubing at that 1" square has about the same bending stiffness as the 1 1/4" round tubing used in the best full bore 100 mph plus racing karts. Indeed, 1" tubing is allowed by the rules and considered quite acceptable for such racing karts, even when using the round stuff.
As it happens I have a stack of 4' lengths of it right here, as it is my prefered material for quick and dirty prototyping. I defy you to bend even a 4' length of it across your knee. In fact you probably couldn't bend it by resting each end on a bit of 4x4 and jumping on it. Oh, it'll flex, but it won't bend. Cut it in half and it won't even flex. He used two tubes, the mechanical equivalent of cutting to half the length. I've built a street luge out of single SIX foot length of such tubing. It hasn't " bent across my knee" or anything.
To give an example that most people might be able to relate to a bit more the top tube of a cheap Huffy bicycle, such as you can by at K-Mart for under $100 American, is made of 1" diameter mild steel ROUND tubing, ( remember, round is easier to 'bend across your knee'), exactly like the kind you can buy at the home improvement store. I don't think are many out there can imagine bending it across their knee. Indeed I use just such a top tube sawn from a discarded frame as a "cheater bar" when I need to exert hundreds of pounds of leverage an a short handled wrench. I've never noticed it flex AT ALL when used as such.
You might be surprised to learn that the frame of the Lotus 8 racing sports car was made from only 21 pounds of 1" diameter * 18 and twenty gauge*, ( thiner than what you get at the home improvement store, much), round mild steel tubing. The car is still in service over 40 years after its construction, the first several of which it spent in serious competitiion.
By the way, your street car is constructed of 18 gauge mild steel sheet, which you CAN easily fold across your knee.
The brake he constructed is admitedly crude, but basically the same as that used on the early racing karts, and essentially the same as that still used on "fun Karts" such as you can buy at Sears today. Quite acceptable for his purpose and in no way indicative of a future as a Darwin Award winner. Easily as effective as a bicyle brake, quite possibly more so, and certainly as effective as that used to stop street luges weighing nearly the same going 80 miles per hour. Those brakes are called " Keds."
As for the likelyhood of the frame supporting the jet engine bending I would like you to perform a little experiment. Take a child's tricycle, ( which is likely made from 1" diameter * electrical conduit*, no, I am NOT making that up, it is actually electrical conduit, and I defy you to bend the tricycle across your knee), and apply 30 lbs of force to it.
Does it bend? Does the seat post, made of even smaller diameter tubing of even more dubious lineage, bend?
No.
Ok, apply 100 lbs of force to it.
Gee, still not bent even though we have applied the maximum amount of thrust his most powerful engine produces.
How about *1000* lbs of force? 10,000 lbs? A million? An *irresistable force?*
Why won't the damn thing bend no matter HOW hard you push on it? Because it isn't an immovable object. It has * wheels.*
The harder you push, the FASTER it goes as the energy of the push is converted into the kinetic energy of the tricycle. The actual force felt by tube pushed upon is actually quite small. This is the same fact of physics that lets a man pull a 10,000 lb box car with his teeth, or for you to apply a 100 lb force to the 18 gauge sheet steel making up the trunk of your car without it "folding across your knee."
The frame itself is constructed from a handcart, itself constructed from 1" ROUND, (easier to bend across your knee than square), mild steel tubing. Hey, go bend a handcart across your knee.
Now we know, because * we actually read the article* that the thrust produced by the engine was either 30 or 100 lbs. This happens to be in the range of force producable by a 5'2" 100 lb woman of indifferent athletic ablility. This means that if he were worried that he might run into an immovable object while the engine was running and the the frame might then fold over on him he could take the simple empirical step of placing the front wheels against his garage wall and * pushing on it.* You can simulate this experiment yourself by taking a handcart putting the load bed under something immoveable and pushing on it. Gee, you're looking a little blue around the gills now and the handcart hasn't bent at all. In fact the sheet steel of the load bed will bend before the tubing of the handle will and I defy you to bend even THAT across your knee.
Look, I'm not averse to smartass comments, as this post itself is ample evidence, and I'm sorry if this post is a bit derisive, but you set the tone by deriding a man, who is clearly an excentric, as most of us geeks here are, ( by the way, computer or software " engineer" =! engineer), but just as clearly has a pretty good idea of what he's doing and the accepted practices of empirical engineering for accomplishing it. Your smartass comment only served to show that it is you that is =! engineer.
I had not seen this. I read a piece by what I had believed was one of the developers over a year ago who explained that derivation of the names and said that it WAS named after Nanny Ogg, a practitioner of * practical magic.*
I stand corrected, as we all do from time to time.
Ben Franklin WAS a publisher. In fact he was perhaps the most successful publisher in the colonies. He USED his power as a publisher to institute libraries. . .
and overthrow the legitimate government of the time.
Vorbis is a minor charecter in a single discworld book. Nanny Ogg, and the Ogg family she comes from, are major players in an entire thread of the discworld series.
The child's site you point to correctly points out that the sun will * burn out* in about 5 billion years, however, it will turn into a red giant about a billion years before that.
As for the 15 billion figure that is the estimated age of the *entire frikkin' universe* so I guess the author should get credit for having been able to attach a cosmological number with a subject of cosmology, but it's kinda like saying that Lincoln was assasinated in 1066.
On the contrary I read the article. I always read the article before I post.
I still maintain the original poster was NOT redundant. Redundancy implies *duplication.* The post in question was, as I stated, unique and thus, by definition, not redundant.
Perhaps you might consider him offtopic. Had he been modded as such I might not have responded.
Redundant OR offtopic he was STILL insightful. It is a pricing structure that makes the receiver pay for calls that allows the spamer to operate at a profit. This applies to the current issue even though it is not the spaming itself that the outfit in question is being sued for, and thus I personally do not believe it was offtopic either.
P.S. My bretheren and I do not typically get marked redundant or flamebait, ( although I don't know what relevance flamebait has to redundency), which you would know if you had " read the article."
Redundant? This post is both unique, and thus, by definition NOT redundant, and, more to the point, hits the nail on the head.
The gentleman is insightful.
KFG
Congratulations, you have been. . .
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 2
as I write this, modded up two, and down two.
A good sign you have written a valuable and thought provoking post. Too bad there's no way to elevate a post that generates a lot of modding that leaves it about even with where it started as these are often the most worth actually reading and responding to.
makes me feel old. My daughter just turned 21, my slide rules are older than her.
I've got two Picketts. Same as used on Apollo 13. One to go in my pocket protector, on massive job in a holster to hang from my belt. The leather holster is worth more than most calculators these days. Slide rules were serious business back in the old days.
The Picketts are aluminum, but that was a considered a " new high tech" idea. Before that *Bamboo* was the considered the best material to make slide rules from. Used to have a bamboo K&E, and a circular Teledyne, but somebody with taste and no morals stole them.
KFG
Re:Quite simply the best...
on
Lord of Light
·
· Score: 2
In this case not may have been, but absolutely was. Pete was traveling with Woody at the time he put the sign on his guitar, he liked the idea, but wanted to put forward a more positive message. Nobody ever accused Woody of moderation.
Zalazny was quite familiar with Guthrie and Seeger and not a bad folk performer himself, which is what leads me to believe the quote in question was indeed a reference.
I'm friends of friends of all three and have heard the odd story or two, not to mention the fact that all three have given us an extensive body of written work.
KFG
Re:Doorways In The Sand
on
Lord of Light
·
· Score: 1
Bear in mind that, as Danny pointed out, part of the experiment in this case was to write it in the style of the ancient Indian texts, thus its episodic nature, with each episode told in a somewhat different style and voice.
In that frame of reference the experiment becomes rather natural.
KFG
Re:Quite simply the best...
on
Lord of Light
·
· Score: 2
That line may well have been, ( and may well not have been), a subtle reference to Pete Seeger, who in early sixties created his "anti-fascist banjo."
Inscribed on the head is the phrase:
"This machine surrounds hate and forces it to surrender."
As for your point about the review being a spoiler Danny has been taken to task over that elsewhere in the thread, and partially defended himself. You can see my post to him, but at the risk of being redundant I agree with you fully. The reader is intentionally left "ingnorant" and thus full of "illusion" about just what is going on in the story and Zalazny masterfully leads the reader to an "enlightenment experience." This enlightment experience is key to properly enjoying the book and, and is what elevates it from meerly a masterful piece of story telling into a masterful piece of literature.
KFG
Re:I think the review is a bit out....
on
Lord of Light
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, the way he phrased that threw me too, and I nearly wrote a post similar to yours, but then I went and read it again.
I think he got it right, but did a rather poor job of conveying his thought. It happens.
And Buddhism, as in the book in question, was a "reformation" of Hinduism, whose *written* scriptures are about twice as old as the bible.
I agree with the parent posters premise. Being released in '68 hardly makes LOL an ancient tome whose "modern" relevance is surprising, because the *bible* itself is only somewhat middle aged in the pantheon of the written word.
Slashdot Mirror
As is it happens he is. . .wait for it. . .
KFG
Who can't spell for shit and knows it.
Sucks to be you.
KFG
Beleive it or not for the best quick and dirty explaination of general engineering principles relating to beams I recommend " Your Engineered House" by Rex Roberts.
For any concept relating to the strength of items assembled from beams, and in engineering terms tubing is a beam, you can't do much better than " Racing and Sports Car Chassis Design" by Costin and Phipps. It's quite readable, and fascinating to anyone with an interest in classic tube frame racing cars. If nothing else by the time you're through with it you'll understand that you really CAN build an actual car frame with *broom handles* and hollow core door skins if you understand the principles.
For wood as it relates to engineering concepts, both how to use it and how to work with it, any good book on building boats from plywood will set you up to build ANYTHING from wood, including cars and airplanes. Books on building airplanes from plywood are good but less accesable to casual reading, but don't really do a better job of explaining things than the boat people do, who assume the reader is an " Average Joe." Boatbuilding includes a broad range of skills and topics from basic woodworking to fine cabinetry, from basic welding to precision machining, from working with stuff from the lumberyard, to the most cutting edge composites. Learn to design and build boats and you can design and build nearly anything.
It's also a popular subject so your local library ought to have literally dozens of good titles. Look for "Instant Boats" by Dynamite Payson for a good start.
Ok, it's a litte embaressing to say it, but the Time-Life series of books is unbeatable for getting the feel for nearly any subject.
Steve Smith Publishing makes available a whole range of books relating to performance and racing cars. These include practical guides to welding and fabrication for the "home" scratch builder of racing cars.
Oh, and I'd reccomend Eric Sloan's " A reverance for Wood," because I have, well, a reverence for wood. It is the most overlooked and mistakenly ignored engineering material.
Most important though is putting down the books and getting your hands dirty. 3/4" wooden dowels and 1 1/2" angle iron are free for the taking, ( broom handles and bed frames on trash day), do anything you can use these materials for and you are free to play without worrying much about cost. If you're willing to put in a bit of effort fairly large quantities of sheet metal can be salvaged from discarded refridgerators and other home appliances.
And of course bicycles. Discarded bicycles are a wealth of material.
PVC pipe is abundant and cheap, as is electrical conduit.
Become a mad scientist for a while and just " dick with shit."
Kinda like learning Linux.
KFG
If I had moderator points and hadn't posted in this thread I would give you a "funny" point.
Thank you, I needed the laugh.
Oh, by the way, you mispelled "I."
KFG
Indeed, the kart is not safe, as the builder himself admits.
The point is that it isn't safe for the reasons that the builder points out, not the reasons that that were pointed out in the post that I responded to.
The little wheels happen to be nearly ideal for a gravel road. Indeed the little wheels are nearly identical to, and came from the same source, as the very first racing kart. That kart
was built by a man who made Indianapolis roadsters for a living. He knew what he was doing, and why. Some of his welds are messy, but don't have any obvious signs of porosity or other weld flaws that would dramatically effect strength. Indeed, I've seen bicycles with messier welds. They seem to be quite fashionable these days. By the way, I've spent the past several years living with a professional welder and have learned to tell the difference between a really weak weld and one that is just ugly. ( She makes locomotives by the way, real ones. From scratch.)
As a bicycle racer I've gotten a fair amount of road rash from spills much higher off the ground than this gentlman sits, and at much higher speeds than his vehicle is capable of, ( I can go up hills, his kart can't), with nothing to protect me than a wee bit of lycra spandex. It has yet to prove fatal.
His brake may appear dodgy to you but has proven to be a method quite acceptable over decades for karts chain driven by 5 h.p. engines. Indeed, if applied it would be sufficient to keep his kart from moving at all at the full thrust of his most powerful engine. In fact you could keep his kart from moving by the simple expedient of standing in front of it and HOLDING it still.
Did you read the article? Do you understand that the device has a FRACTION the performance capacity of a bicycle?
The photos have many points of reference to determine the cross section of the tubing. Chief among these is the diameter of the handcart tubing. That is 99.9999999 per cent certain to be 1". The axle bolts are also a reference for size. These are of a standard size for handcarts. If you want a reference for 1/2" look at his steering shaft. That is 1/2", which happens to be standard for a kart. Standard for a 2 ton car at 100 mph is only 1/4" larger than that.
By the way, wooden 2x3s would be quite safe for his vehicle. I've built quite safe and ridable pedal powered tricycles of higer performance than this gentlman's device from * 1x3s.* You would obviously be rather surprised at how strong and safe a cart frame can be if constructed from * discared broom handles harvested on trash day.* In know. I've DONE it to prove the point to sceptics. Quite ridable bicycles have been comercially produced from 1" diameter * bamboo.*
The tubing used by Telecom for it's maintance tents, last I inspected one, ( yes, I have inspected them, I'm a geek with a special curiosity for how tubing is joined for various puposes, you should see me ogling awnings), was 3/4" electrical conduit. Electrical conduit is MUCH weaker than mild steel. Electrical conduit is not made square. In any case I can tell it isn't of that poor quality be observing the cut off end of one of the tubes. Yes, I CAN tell just by looking at it in the picture.
Yes, the gentlman perhaps has a bit more bravery than is good for him. I'd advise him to install a standard racing kart seat before taking any more rides. At that point about the only way he could get as much as road rash, given the perfomance capability of his vehicle, would be to be hit by a meteor while he was driving it.
Oh yes, if I ever get pompous about spelling, which is something I never do, I promise to use a spell checker.
When I get pompous about engineering questions about which I have specific training and experience in I'll rely on engineering. The strength of steel isn't affected by my spelling.
Surely you know that attacking a poster's spelling when arguing a technical point is generally taken as both bad form and evidence that you have lost the argument? It's the equivelent of " Yo' Mama!" For reference I spell better in Spanish than English. A much more sensible language when it comes to spelling.
You DO remember that this is the * World Wide* Web, don't you?
Oh, " Sure I hope it dosn't happen" is either poor punctuation or poor grammer.
Look it up in your Strunk and White.
KFG
Indeed, I put well over 100 lbs of thrust onto my bicycle pedals and it's all I can do to maintain 30 mph over level ground for any period of time, despite a direct mechanical connection to the drive wheel of 98% efficeincy and a MUCH lower rolling resistence.
Not to mention the fact that I'd have to put over 100 lbs of weight in my panniers to match his all up weight.
On the whole he dosn't seem to be in any more danger than embaressment and annoying the people at the golf course. And perhaps some sheep.
KFG
And apparently you arn't an engineer either, using 'thin' as a synonym for 'small cross section,' a technical misuse of the language that an engineer would never make. When an engineer uses the word thin in reference to tubing he is refering to its wall thickness.
Assuming of course that he is using tubing. For all you know they could be solid bars. Of course as someone who has worked as an automotive engineer and custom builder of bicycle frames, racing suspension components and. . . yes, karts, I know that would be silly.
Givin the nature of his project and his obvious penchant for using common and inexpensive materials where such are appropriate it appears he has used common 1" mild steel square tubing such as can be obtained at any home improvement store.
If you were versed in such matters you would know that square tubing is more rigid in bending than round tubing at that 1" square has about the same bending stiffness as the 1 1/4" round tubing used in the best full bore 100 mph plus racing karts. Indeed, 1" tubing is allowed by the rules and considered quite acceptable for such racing karts, even when using the round stuff.
As it happens I have a stack of 4' lengths of it right here, as it is my prefered material for quick and dirty prototyping. I defy you to bend even a 4' length of it across your knee. In fact you probably couldn't bend it by resting each end on a bit of 4x4 and jumping on it. Oh, it'll flex, but it won't bend. Cut it in half and it won't even flex. He used two tubes, the mechanical equivalent of cutting to half the length. I've built a street luge out of single SIX foot length of such tubing. It hasn't " bent across my knee" or anything.
To give an example that most people might be able to relate to a bit more the top tube of a cheap Huffy bicycle, such as you can by at K-Mart for under $100 American, is made of 1" diameter mild steel ROUND tubing, ( remember, round is easier to 'bend across your knee'), exactly like the kind you can buy at the home improvement store. I don't think are many out there can imagine bending it across their knee. Indeed I use just such a top tube sawn from a discarded frame as a "cheater bar" when I need to exert hundreds of pounds of leverage an a short handled wrench. I've never noticed it flex AT ALL when used as such.
You might be surprised to learn that the frame of the Lotus 8 racing sports car was made from only 21 pounds of 1" diameter * 18 and twenty gauge*, ( thiner than what you get at the home improvement store, much), round mild steel tubing. The car is still in service over 40 years after its construction, the first several of which it spent in serious competitiion.
By the way, your street car is constructed of 18 gauge mild steel sheet, which you CAN easily fold across your knee.
The brake he constructed is admitedly crude, but basically the same as that used on the early racing karts, and essentially the same as that still used on "fun Karts" such as you can buy at Sears today. Quite acceptable for his purpose and in no way indicative of a future as a Darwin Award winner. Easily as effective as a bicyle brake, quite possibly more so, and certainly as effective as that used to stop street luges weighing nearly the same going 80 miles per hour. Those brakes are called " Keds."
As for the likelyhood of the frame supporting the jet engine bending I would like you to perform a little experiment. Take a child's tricycle, ( which is likely made from 1" diameter * electrical conduit*, no, I am NOT making that up, it is actually electrical conduit, and I defy you to bend the tricycle across your knee), and apply 30 lbs of force to it.
Does it bend? Does the seat post, made of even smaller diameter tubing of even more dubious lineage, bend?
No.
Ok, apply 100 lbs of force to it.
Gee, still not bent even though we have applied the maximum amount of thrust his most powerful engine produces.
How about *1000* lbs of force? 10,000 lbs? A million? An *irresistable force?*
Why won't the damn thing bend no matter HOW hard you push on it? Because it isn't an immovable object. It has * wheels.*
The harder you push, the FASTER it goes as the energy of the push is converted into the kinetic energy of the tricycle. The actual force felt by tube pushed upon is actually quite small. This is the same fact of physics that lets a man pull a 10,000 lb box car with his teeth, or for you to apply a 100 lb force to the 18 gauge sheet steel making up the trunk of your car without it "folding across your knee."
The frame itself is constructed from a handcart, itself constructed from 1" ROUND, (easier to bend across your knee than square), mild steel tubing. Hey, go bend a handcart across your knee.
Now we know, because * we actually read the article* that the thrust produced by the engine was either 30 or 100 lbs. This happens to be in the range of force producable by a 5'2" 100 lb woman of indifferent athletic ablility. This means that if he were worried that he might run into an immovable object while the engine was running and the the frame might then fold over on him he could take the simple empirical step of placing the front wheels against his garage wall and * pushing on it.* You can simulate this experiment yourself by taking a handcart putting the load bed under something immoveable and pushing on it. Gee, you're looking a little blue around the gills now and the handcart hasn't bent at all. In fact the sheet steel of the load bed will bend before the tubing of the handle will and I defy you to bend even THAT across your knee.
Look, I'm not averse to smartass comments, as this post itself is ample evidence, and I'm sorry if this post is a bit derisive, but you set the tone by deriding a man, who is clearly an excentric, as most of us geeks here are, ( by the way, computer or software " engineer" =! engineer), but just as clearly has a pretty good idea of what he's doing and the accepted practices of empirical engineering for accomplishing it. Your smartass comment only served to show that it is you that is =! engineer.
No one likes a Cliff Clavin.
KFG
http://www.kernal.org
http://www.gnu.org
Thank you.
KFG
You are mistaken, by a full hemisphere.
She disappeared on landing approach to Howland Island in the Pacific.
KFG
Or in the song contemporaneous with her disappearance:
There's a beautiful, beautiful field,
far away in a land that is fair.
Happy landings to you Amelia Earhart,
farewell, first lady of the air.
KFG
Nonsense, it was meerly missrouted to San Marino and is scheduled to be returned to her. . .
Next Tuesday.
KFG
I was speaking strictly in the sense of the discworld series as a whole, not a single work.
Death is a major charecter in this light. Susan really isn't, even though she's a lead charecter in one book and a appears in a few others.
Certainly in ONE book she is a major charecter.
KFG
I had not seen this. I read a piece by what I had believed was one of the developers over a year ago who explained that derivation of the names and said that it WAS named after Nanny Ogg, a practitioner of * practical magic.*
I stand corrected, as we all do from time to time.
KFG
Ben Franklin WAS a publisher. In fact he was perhaps the most successful publisher in the colonies. He USED his power as a publisher to institute libraries. . .
and overthrow the legitimate government of the time.
KFG
Vorbis is a minor charecter in a single discworld book. Nanny Ogg, and the Ogg family she comes from, are major players in an entire thread of the discworld series.
KFG
The child's site you point to correctly points out that the sun will * burn out* in about 5 billion years, however, it will turn into a red giant about a billion years before that.
As for the 15 billion figure that is the estimated age of the *entire frikkin' universe* so I guess the author should get credit for having been able to attach a cosmological number with a subject of cosmology, but it's kinda like saying that Lincoln was assasinated in 1066.
KFG
On the contrary I read the article. I always read the article before I post.
I still maintain the original poster was NOT redundant. Redundancy implies *duplication.* The post in question was, as I stated, unique and thus, by definition, not redundant.
Perhaps you might consider him offtopic. Had he been modded as such I might not have responded.
Redundant OR offtopic he was STILL insightful. It is a pricing structure that makes the receiver pay for calls that allows the spamer to operate at a profit. This applies to the current issue even though it is not the spaming itself that the outfit in question is being sued for, and thus I personally do not believe it was offtopic either.
P.S. My bretheren and I do not typically get marked redundant or flamebait, ( although I don't know what relevance flamebait has to redundency), which you would know if you had " read the article."
Or a dictionary.
KFG
KFG
Redundant? This post is both unique, and thus, by definition NOT redundant, and, more to the point, hits the nail on the head.
The gentleman is insightful.
KFG
as I write this, modded up two, and down two.
A good sign you have written a valuable and thought provoking post. Too bad there's no way to elevate a post that generates a lot of modding that leaves it about even with where it started as these are often the most worth actually reading and responding to.
KFG
makes me feel old. My daughter just turned 21, my slide rules are older than her.
I've got two Picketts. Same as used on Apollo 13. One to go in my pocket protector, on massive job in a holster to hang from my belt. The leather holster is worth more than most calculators these days. Slide rules were serious business back in the old days.
The Picketts are aluminum, but that was a considered a " new high tech" idea. Before that *Bamboo* was the considered the best material to make slide rules from. Used to have a bamboo K&E, and a circular Teledyne, but somebody with taste and no morals stole them.
KFG
In this case not may have been, but absolutely was. Pete was traveling with Woody at the time he put the sign on his guitar, he liked the idea, but wanted to put forward a more positive message. Nobody ever accused Woody of moderation.
Zalazny was quite familiar with Guthrie and Seeger and not a bad folk performer himself, which is what leads me to believe the quote in question was indeed a reference.
I'm friends of friends of all three and have heard the odd story or two, not to mention the fact that all three have given us an extensive body of written work.
KFG
Bear in mind that, as Danny pointed out, part of the experiment in this case was to write it in the style of the ancient Indian texts, thus its episodic nature, with each episode told in a somewhat different style and voice.
In that frame of reference the experiment becomes rather natural.
KFG
That line may well have been, ( and may well not have been), a subtle reference to Pete Seeger, who in early sixties created his "anti-fascist banjo."
Inscribed on the head is the phrase:
"This machine surrounds hate and forces it to surrender."
As for your point about the review being a spoiler Danny has been taken to task over that elsewhere in the thread, and partially defended himself. You can see my post to him, but at the risk of being redundant I agree with you fully. The reader is intentionally left "ingnorant" and thus full of "illusion" about just what is going on in the story and Zalazny masterfully leads the reader to an "enlightenment experience." This enlightment experience is key to properly enjoying the book and, and is what elevates it from meerly a masterful piece of story telling into a masterful piece of literature.
KFG
Yeah, the way he phrased that threw me too, and I nearly wrote a post similar to yours, but then I went and read it again.
I think he got it right, but did a rather poor job of conveying his thought. It happens.
KFG
Havn't a clue, I've only got the first edition I bought when it came out. Maybe I'll need to pick up a newer version and compare them.
If nothing else I get to reread the book a couple of times, hardly a punishment.
KFG
And Buddhism, as in the book in question, was a "reformation" of Hinduism, whose *written* scriptures are about twice as old as the bible.
I agree with the parent posters premise. Being released in '68 hardly makes LOL an ancient tome whose "modern" relevance is surprising, because the *bible* itself is only somewhat middle aged in the pantheon of the written word.
KFG