That's near the ratio our company has. We're a construction company, bridges, highways, tunnels, that stuff. about 6,000 staff (engineers, superintendents, support services) and 16,000 craft (men with hammers). There's about 15 regional IT guys, and about 15 in the home office, since everything is run centrally. That's 1:300 on the engineering and support services, but 1:730 on the whole. 25:15000 (1:600) doesn't seem bad on the whole.
First off, your use of the work mould means you are either British or know nothing about concrete. The walls used to hold the uncured concrete are called forms.
Making adjacent blocks with tight cracks is blindingly easy. First, pour one block. Start with a corner one. This takes (4) side forms. Second, strip the forms. Clean them. Third, set three forms, using the hardened block as the 4th wall. Pour this one.
Repeat steps 2 and 3 ad nauseam.
You could pour every other block, and come back and pour the ones in between. They even had the technology to make all of the blocks line up straight - string. We use the same technology today.
Besides, making a sort of concrete from powdered stone and lime just to pour it at the bottom seems like a real bad idea - why not just carry the mud and forms to the top and save the effort of moving and aligning the final bricks?
I used to be a big fan of the trackpad, and I hated it when we purchased a bunch of Thinkpads that only had a clitoris (which I think more accurately describes how you use it).
I don't know about you, but I never operate my laptop with my tongue.
5% are reporting on the media. The ones discussing sports, entertainment, politics, etc. are on a journalistic bent, whether or not they cover the media. This is like saying that the only journalists at NPR do the "On the Media" show. Once again, lies, damn lies, and statistics.
This is a beautiful troll, with a quality missing in a long time.
Maybe he changed both sites in the last 10 hours, but there's no ads now. Rednip, kfury, nacturation, you've been had. Seriously, you took someone with a url of www.gnaa.us seriously?
"and, although I'm not a metalurgist, is there any reason that titanium couldnt replace steel almost entirely if it was cheap enough? "
One word: welding.
OK, I'm drunk, but bear with me. I weld best this way, so explanations should work as well. Welding steel is easy, really easy. It can be done outside, with nothing but a constant-current power source and some flux coated rods (SMAW,or 'stick' welding). This requires a minimal amount of skill. Move on to some better equipment, say wire feeders and constant-voltage machines, and we can weld sheet metal like it's nothing (GMAW) or lay down some structural fill in a hurry (FCAW or SAW). I can teach someone to weld FCAW in a few hours, provided they're smart enough not to burn themselves and not look at the bright lights without a shield.
Titanium oxidizes like a little bitch. Basically, the largest part of welding technology is creative ways to keep oxygen, hydrogen, and those other things in the air away from the weld puddle. This can be done by flux (SMAW, FCAW, SAW), or by shielding gasses like CO2, Ar, He (GMAW, FCAW, GTAW). The only good way to weld titanium is by using TIG (GTAW). This is the most skilled, labor-intensive, slowest process going. I can lay down steel welds for bridge in pounds per hour, but titanium takes hours per pound.
Now, more available titanium should lead to a titanium MIG (GMAW) process, but that's still small potatoes compared to SAW, GMAW, and it can't really be done outside. (I don't want to hear about the trailer you welded in your driveway. Try it two stories up in the wind, or on a barge, and we'll talk). To provide another point of reference, the high production and field processes (SAW, FCAW, SMAW) don't work with Aluminum, the 20th century's miracle metal, because they are flux-based and Aluminum doesn't do flux-based, flat out. Titanium will be the same way.
In summary, titanium is kept in limited used in industry because it's hard to weld, not because it's expensive.
Forgot about the flanges of the box-channels folding in on themselves. Basically, because it's so dumb of a design to make tip-to-tip channel boxes, I've blocked it from memory; the guy needed to buy some tube steel in a bad way.
The point about increased shear stands, even if it wasn't the failure mode.
Say there are two decks, and each weighs 100K, and is equally supported by 10 hanger assemblies. I pulled these numbers out of my ass because the math works easy. Say that we're approaching a large number of spans, so the load on each hanger comes half from the left, and half from the right. Additionally, say the lower hanger connects to the upper deck 6 inches to the left of the upper hanger.
P(lower) = 10K. this 10K transfers into the upper deck webs six inches to the left. We also know that the load from the upper deck is 5K to the left and 5K to the right = 10k of weight from the upper deck. So, just to the left of the upper hanger, there is 10K(lower deck) + 5K(upper deck) = 15K of shear. If the engineer only designed for 5K of Since we only design structural work with a 50% safety factor over the load (i.e., max load =.66 x ultimate), we're at twice ultimate, and therefore failure.
The lower hanger still sees 10K. The upper hanger still sees 20K. Beam sees 15K instead of 5K.
When this fails, it will look like a connection failure. The connection is the point of highest stress, but the stress is still in the beam. The spots where holes have been drilled (god, hope they weren't burned) are the stress risers, and the cracks and tears will start from there.
Actually, it didn't increase the stresses in the connectors, it increased the shear in the beam between the two connectors - the lower deck load path was lower hanger -> beam web -> upper hanger instead of lower hanger -> upper hanger as was intended.
I assume you're talking about the difference between back to back ( ][ ) channels vs. tip to tip ( [] ) channels.
From a standard beam perspective, that is, under solely strong-axis bending, the two configurations have the same section modulus, and therefore strength. the tip-to-tip has a greater torsional constant, and is better at long, unsupported spans (greater resistance to lateral-torsional failure, where the beam buckles out sideways, then falls).
So, why one over the other, structural concerns aside? Back to back makes it really easy to capture a rod between the channels. It's basically a wide-flange (I beam) with a split in the center to allow loading through the neutral axis. This is used this all the time for strongbacks in soil support systems, and form walers. (pic on page 2) If you're going tip-to-tip, you've recreated a tube structure the hard way, and you should have bought rectangular tube instead - no weld in the middle of the flange area where you joined the channels, cheaper, stronger (channels are commonly 36ksi, while tubes are 42 or 46ksi), and cleaner looking.
Basically, there's not a lot of good reasons for tip-to-tip channels.
Guy: "Hi, sir, [remainder of unlikely made up theoretical story] This'll be fantastic! -- Get a free Macbook Pro for yourself, and help me do the same. [free4me.net]
Right. Like we're supposed to take 'how to not get scammed' advice from a guy advertising a pyramid scheme in his sig.
If you believe that stuff, getting fleeced by paypal's service or loosing your phone are probably not at the top of your problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Entirely correct.
However, since it's a lance, not a torch, he's substituting the magnesium rods for bacon.
That's near the ratio our company has.
We're a construction company, bridges, highways, tunnels, that stuff.
about 6,000 staff (engineers, superintendents, support services) and 16,000 craft (men with hammers).
There's about 15 regional IT guys, and about 15 in the home office, since everything is run centrally.
That's 1:300 on the engineering and support services, but 1:730 on the whole.
25:15000 (1:600) doesn't seem bad on the whole.
Or Battlestar Galactica, either.
Actually, straight lines are relatively easy.
There's this great technology called string. Pull it tight, and you can determine without much effort where to chip as to have a straight wall.
First off, your use of the work mould means you are either British or know nothing about concrete. The walls used to hold the uncured concrete are called forms.
Making adjacent blocks with tight cracks is blindingly easy.
First, pour one block. Start with a corner one. This takes (4) side forms.
Second, strip the forms. Clean them.
Third, set three forms, using the hardened block as the 4th wall. Pour this one.
Repeat steps 2 and 3 ad nauseam.
You could pour every other block, and come back and pour the ones in between.
They even had the technology to make all of the blocks line up straight - string. We use the same technology today.
Besides, making a sort of concrete from powdered stone and lime just to pour it at the bottom seems like a real bad idea - why not just carry the mud and forms to the top and save the effort of moving and aligning the final bricks?
4 years of Mechatronic Engineering would be good start.
OK, you made that up.
It sounds like you design robotic enemies for Godzilla.
Shit yes. That thing is so wrong -
It said that I'm a left-handed, 50-something woman, who's more of a night person and very religious.
All wrong.
I used to be a big fan of the trackpad, and I hated it when we purchased a bunch of Thinkpads that only had a clitoris (which I think more accurately describes how you use it).
I don't know about you, but I never operate my laptop with my tongue.
5% are reporting on the media. The ones discussing sports, entertainment, politics, etc. are on a journalistic bent, whether or not they cover the media.
This is like saying that the only journalists at NPR do the "On the Media" show.
Once again, lies, damn lies, and statistics.
I'm with you.
Taco and Hemos = Click and Clack.
Cowboy Neal must be Daniel Pinkwater.
This is a beautiful troll, with a quality missing in a long time.
Maybe he changed both sites in the last 10 hours, but there's no ads now.
Rednip, kfury, nacturation, you've been had. Seriously, you took someone with a url of www.gnaa.us seriously?
And you'll never get rid of those damn iron filings.
Seriously. This is the worst possible idea for machinists and the like; steel splinters here we come!!
One step ahead of ya.
Better strength to stiffness ratios, if I remember correctly. Also, higher overall strength.
More importantly, titanium watches won't leave black shit on your wrist like an aluminum one.
"and, although I'm not a metalurgist, is there any reason that titanium couldnt replace steel almost entirely if it was cheap enough? "
One word: welding.
OK, I'm drunk, but bear with me. I weld best this way, so explanations should work as well.
Welding steel is easy, really easy. It can be done outside, with nothing but a constant-current power source and some flux coated rods (SMAW,or 'stick' welding). This requires a minimal amount of skill. Move on to some better equipment, say wire feeders and constant-voltage machines, and we can weld sheet metal like it's nothing (GMAW) or lay down some structural fill in a hurry (FCAW or SAW). I can teach someone to weld FCAW in a few hours, provided they're smart enough not to burn themselves and not look at the bright lights without a shield.
Titanium oxidizes like a little bitch. Basically, the largest part of welding technology is creative ways to keep oxygen, hydrogen, and those other things in the air away from the weld puddle. This can be done by flux (SMAW, FCAW, SAW), or by shielding gasses like CO2, Ar, He (GMAW, FCAW, GTAW). The only good way to weld titanium is by using TIG (GTAW). This is the most skilled, labor-intensive, slowest process going. I can lay down steel welds for bridge in pounds per hour, but titanium takes hours per pound.
Now, more available titanium should lead to a titanium MIG (GMAW) process, but that's still small potatoes compared to SAW, GMAW, and it can't really be done outside. (I don't want to hear about the trailer you welded in your driveway. Try it two stories up in the wind, or on a barge, and we'll talk). To provide another point of reference, the high production and field processes (SAW, FCAW, SMAW) don't work with Aluminum, the 20th century's miracle metal, because they are flux-based and Aluminum doesn't do flux-based, flat out. Titanium will be the same way.
In summary, titanium is kept in limited used in industry because it's hard to weld, not because it's expensive.
Oops.
Forgot about the flanges of the box-channels folding in on themselves. Basically, because it's so dumb of a design to make tip-to-tip channel boxes, I've blocked it from memory; the guy needed to buy some tube steel in a bad way.
The point about increased shear stands, even if it wasn't the failure mode.
Um, yes. Longitudinally, along the main axis of the beam.
Intuitive, but wrong.
.66 x ultimate), we're at twice ultimate, and therefore failure.
OK, this is easier with graphs, but here goes.
Say there are two decks, and each weighs 100K, and is equally supported by 10 hanger assemblies. I pulled these numbers out of my ass because the math works easy. Say that we're approaching a large number of spans, so the load on each hanger comes half from the left, and half from the right.
Additionally, say the lower hanger connects to the upper deck 6 inches to the left of the upper hanger.
P(lower) = 10K. this 10K transfers into the upper deck webs six inches to the left.
We also know that the load from the upper deck is 5K to the left and 5K to the right = 10k of weight from the upper deck.
So, just to the left of the upper hanger, there is 10K(lower deck) + 5K(upper deck) = 15K of shear.
If the engineer only designed for 5K of Since we only design structural work with a 50% safety factor over the load (i.e., max load =
The lower hanger still sees 10K.
The upper hanger still sees 20K.
Beam sees 15K instead of 5K.
When this fails, it will look like a connection failure. The connection is the point of highest stress, but the stress is still in the beam. The spots where holes have been drilled (god, hope they weren't burned) are the stress risers, and the cracks and tears will start from there.
You must have missed the part where I said to use tube instead.
Tube would have solved that problem.
No doubt, but that's a seperate issue.
Actually, it didn't increase the stresses in the connectors, it increased the shear in the beam between the two connectors - the lower deck load path was lower hanger -> beam web -> upper hanger instead of lower hanger -> upper hanger as was intended.
I assume you're talking about the difference between back to back ( ][ ) channels vs. tip to tip ( [] ) channels.
From a standard beam perspective, that is, under solely strong-axis bending, the two configurations have the same section modulus, and therefore strength. the tip-to-tip has a greater torsional constant, and is better at long, unsupported spans (greater resistance to lateral-torsional failure, where the beam buckles out sideways, then falls).
So, why one over the other, structural concerns aside?
Back to back makes it really easy to capture a rod between the channels. It's basically a wide-flange (I beam) with a split in the center to allow loading through the neutral axis. This is used this all the time for strongbacks in soil support systems, and form walers. (pic on page 2)
If you're going tip-to-tip, you've recreated a tube structure the hard way, and you should have bought rectangular tube instead - no weld in the middle of the flange area where you joined the channels, cheaper, stronger (channels are commonly 36ksi, while tubes are 42 or 46ksi), and cleaner looking.
Basically, there's not a lot of good reasons for tip-to-tip channels.
Watch out for the goddamn pandas. They're ferocious.
PBS.
That's NPR with pictures and without Car Talk.
Cheap ISPs explicitly "oversell", with caps, port blocking, gimp masks, whips and chains.
Woah, woah - you can get gimp masks and chains?
Hook me up with some of these people. I've only been able to find providers that only give out plain old beatings.
Right. Like we're supposed to take 'how to not get scammed' advice from a guy advertising a pyramid scheme in his sig.
If you believe that stuff, getting fleeced by paypal's service or loosing your phone are probably not at the top of your problems.