"katysails" wrote:

Excuse me....I did not give you permission to abuse MC...only I am allowed
to abuse him....

Sheeze, that's not fair! I was having fun!

go back to Mooron...he's got a tougher hide....

How do you know? Have you checked out his muscles lately? :-)

So are you saying that MC is all flabby? heheee

LP

"Nav" wrote:

The feeling is quite mutual and moot in my case.

You have feelings? I'm astonished!

LP

Of course you are. Every time you blink it's "Hello world"...

Cheers


Lady Pilot wrote:

"Nav" wrote:


The feeling is quite mutual and moot in my case.


You have feelings? I'm astonished!

LP

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:28:30 -0300, "Capt. Mooron"
wrote:

He uses a secretary ... she types about 120 wpm.

CM

Somebody's tag line from the past.
"I cna ytpe 300 wrods pre mniuet!"
lol
Mark W

And I'm wondering what the formulation time has to do with how long you've
been waiting to work it into a conversation.
Scout

"Nav" wrote in message
...
I wonder what "formuilating a problem" has to do with typing?

Cheers



Capt. Mooron wrote:
Heh... who cares... she gets paid.. she types.

CM

"Scout" wrote in message
...
| I'll bet she just loves being forced into asa ****ing contests.
| Scout
|
| "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
| ...
| He uses a secretary ... she types about 120 wpm.
|
| CM
|
|
|
| "Scout" wrote in message
| ...
| | I don't believe you can type that fast.
| | Scout
|
|
|
|

Hey Doug,
My physics teaching partner is a lot like MC. He's an engineer, but with a
strong military (Navy) background. He loves to "test me" only he seems a bit
less condescending than MC. I'm sure MC is a likeable guy if you can get
past his need to out-math everyone around him. And of course, if you were
female he'd be a lot nicer (song to the tune of Desperado).
With my partner and I, it's a classic case of engineer versus technician.
I'm not always right, but neither is he. We don't hold back debating in
front of the kids either, as we feel they should see what that people often
disagree in the workplace. Every so often we'll take a low shot at each
other. I might say something like, "yes, but when I design something, it has
to actually work." I won't tell you what he says, lol.
My advice is to not take things/people too seriously in this, or any, NG.

Scout
"Everyone wants to design and build, no one wants to do maintenance." K.
Vonnegut


"DSK" wrote
I gather that you have never heard of a "Free Body Diagram"? Freshman
engineering stuff. That is the way to solve such problems. If you
don't believe me, ask Scout.

But I'm not asking Scout. I'm asking _you_ to solve this freshman
problem -if you can.

gonefishiing wrote:
refresh my memory:
i'm looking for the section modulus for a boom section to understand
allowable bending stress.
sx= bd(squared) ?

No, IIRC it's the integral of the solid cross section area distance from
the axis. That's why triangular sections have the greatest rigidty for
their cross section area, and square sections are more rigid than oval
or round.

I can refer you to a pretty good text book.

but this is for rectangular sections right?
how do you calculate this for an oval section?

Personally, I don't. I look it up! But this is also not foolproof, you'd
be amazed how many mfg'rs fudge their specs (or maybe they can't do math).

Hope this helps.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
gonefishiing wrote:
refresh my memory:
i'm looking for the section modulus for a boom section to understand
allowable bending stress.
sx= bd(squared) ?

No, IIRC it's the integral of the solid cross section area distance from
the axis. That's why triangular sections have the greatest rigidty for
their cross section area, and square sections are more rigid than oval
or round.

MEANING TO THE EXTREME OUTER FIBERS IN BOTH AXIS?

I can refer you to a pretty good text book.

but this is for rectangular sections right?
how do you calculate this for an oval section?

Personally, I don't. I look it up! But this is also not foolproof, you'd
be amazed how many mfg'rs fudge their specs (or maybe they can't do math).

YEAH BEEN THERE RECENTLY: IT IS ALSO CALLED EXPENSIVE WHEN YOU DISCOVERED
THEIR PUBLISHED ERRORS.

Hope this helps.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Nav wrote:
Snort.

One of your more clever remarks.


Are you sure? The geometry _is_ defined.


You're right. Lesson 1- always look the problem over thoroughly.

Actually, on 2nd look, you're wrong. It isn't, unless you *assume* the
mast is perfectly vertical and the boom perfectly horizontal.


Are you saying it is not 118 lbs in the topping lift case?

Probably not. With the ratios you give (assuming vertical mast & level
boom, since you don't seem capable of defining the problem correctly)
the compression is going to be somewhat less than 1/2 the weight.

And, if you look closely, you'll see that the tension on the topping
lift is *more* than the weight! Hello! How did that happen?

Wait there's more... a mysterious force has appeared on the mast!
Apparently the pulling of the topping lift and the pushing of the boom
has run amok! HELP HELP!


I gather that you have never heard of a "Free Body Diagram"?
Freshman engineering stuff. That is the way to solve such problems.
If you don't believe me, ask Scout.


But I'm not asking Scout. I'm asking _you_ to solve this freshman
problem -if you can.

I see. You're playing stalker again. Considering that you've never won
even once, is this wise?

Can *you* solve the problem, Navvie? Go ahead, ask for some advice from
down the hall! This mysterious new stress on the mast and the resolution
of forces is not obvious (although it's not terribly difficult either)
and leads to some interesting conclusions, all of which support what I
have said all along.


Well, it is only a few minutes to draw up a free body diagram.

http://community.webshots.com/photo/...79893018mpZKNO

Actually it took the longest to convert the file and upload it. What a
PITA. All to prove a stupid point.

... The question was one of seamanship and
appropriate use of equipment, spars and rigging. Do you deny that a
given weight that will fold a boom in the vang lift will be easily
lifted by the boom if a topping lift is used?

So, I take that you've folded up a boom trying to lift something? Can we
assume that you learned nothing from it, other than "don't"?

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Scout wrote:
Hey Doug,
My physics teaching partner is a lot like MC. He's an engineer, but with a
strong military (Navy) background. He loves to "test me" only he seems a bit
less condescending than MC. I'm sure MC is a likeable guy if you can get
past his need to out-math everyone around him.

The thing I dislike about Navvie, apart from his condescension, is that
he's so often wrong, and he gives bad advice while pontificating. He has
little clue of how little clue he has, and no interest in learning.

I come here mostly to learn, partly for fun... he's no fun and has
nothing to teach other than dendrite morphology (or is it morphadite
endrology?).

With my partner and I, it's a classic case of engineer versus technician.

That's always a tough line to straddle.

I'm not always right, but neither is he.

Nobody is *always* right. It can be fun to pretend though.

... We don't hold back debating in
front of the kids either, as we feel they should see what that people often
disagree in the workplace. Every so often we'll take a low shot at each
other. I might say something like, "yes, but when I design something, it has
to actually work." I won't tell you what he says, lol.

I can guess.

My advice is to not take things/people too seriously in this, or any, NG.

There is a good bit to be learned here... with guys like Jeff, Oz1, Pony
X, Ol' Thom, Bart, not to mention the pros Rick & Schoonertrash (when he
isn't discussing history) & Shen44 & otn, there are more serious sailing
and cruising discussions here than any other place on the web I've
checked regularly.

But the personality clashes are minor & petty. What makes you think I
take any of it seriously?


"Everyone wants to design and build, no one wants to do maintenance." K.
Vonnegut

That's the honest truth.

Regards
Doug King