Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

[snip]
One could draw a similar comparison in modern nautical terms
between a huge lake ore carrier or super tanker vs. greyhounds of
the fleet such as destroyers, fast carriers, or even the once proud
passenger liners such as the SS United States or the first Queen
Elizabeth. In fact, had Capt. Smith of the Titanic not been so
concerned with setting a new speed record for a transatlantic
crossing on a ship's maiden voyage, he would have both slowed down
and move 100 miles or so south when warned about the many sightings
of icebergs in his path, but he decided to take the risk because
being more conservative but decreasing his risk would have cost him
nearly a day's steaming time, a decision that he learned to his
sorrow was fatal for many hundreds of passengers, crew, and
himself.

They are still investigating on that disaster.
I just read an article (no not on Whacopediagrin) that they were
buildin to many large ships like Titanic and they had not enough
good iron for the rivets and used bad iron rivets for the bow of
the Titanic, one of the reasons the ship sunk so fast.
If I'll find that site I will post it, but I know there are a lot of
rumours about the Titanic.

There are really two parts of the Titanic disaster/tragedy still being
investigated: the causes related to Capt. Smith's decision to
(apparently) ignore warnings from other vessels and modern information
just now coming to light as to structural weaknesses in the hull of the
ship itself. For the latter, one can point to the design standards for
metalurgy and riveting of the day as well as theories still being
investigated as to whether a gash was actually ripped open on the
starboard side or just many plates that buckled. Also, new information
suggests that the bottom of the hull fatally scraped along an
outcropping the the ice berg which ruptured the hill longitudinally for
some distance. Both are virtually impossible to prove or disprove even
with several successful dives on the wreakage site because the hull
sits in a position where it is impossible to determine a root cause and
reluctance to bring up any more steel makes it difficult to do more
extensive metalurgy studies. For the former, one can read the eye
witness accounts of the sinking from survivors and see gross
inconsistencies, such as whether the hull did or did not break in half
before the ship went down (it is now clearly known that it did crack in
half as the bow and stern sections of the wreakage are a couple of
miles apart).

And then, we can discuss the primative and dangerous safety standards
of the day wrt life boats, etc. Thank God, though, at least for
wireless. Now, for many aspects of the Titanic sinking, Bouler, you're
into MY areas of expertise, especially those of engineering and amateur
historian, but NOT those of a nautical nature per se.

Have a good day and thanks for a stimulating discussion!

It was not that bad Jerry;-)

Thank you, Bouler, I appreciate the critique. It is better not to
lead with one's chin when venturing into areas where one does not
have a lot of knowledge and/or is unsure of one's facts, don't you
think?

Very wise spoken Jerry.

I learned this trick from an older engineer early in my Chrysler career
when I still thought I was God's gift to the science and practice of
engineering. Briefly stated, I was told quite profanely and quite
abruptly that if one thinks they know, say, 85% of a given thing and
wish to find out the rest from the true experts, the LAST thing to do
is state all the stuff already known. Rather, I was told, to be very
humble and ask the expert to explain the basics of the issue, listen
patiently during the 85% already known, then perk up the ears when the
remaining 15% is told. The advantage, which I came to find out later
was especially valuable, is that the true expert is now one's friend
and my reputation is enhanced as a reasonable person rather than what
some people call a smart-ass or young whipper snapper. You might recall
during our gettting to know each other phase here that I used this
technique politely to learn the true nature of the on-topic ships for
this NG under the guise of asking a question about my understanding of
the term "tall ship", and NOT stating my facts as if they were the
Gospel because while I thought I was correct, I KNEW that you would
have the right definition for the various categories of sail and
powered boats and ships.

Again, thanks for the excellent discussion.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Wow,

all this discussion after a few skutsje pictures.. Thanx for all the
info all contributors. Lee-boards was the term I was looking for. Altyhough
a bit late, thanx!

Regards,

Jeroen

Jeronimus added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

Wow,

all this discussion after a few skutsje pictures.. Thanx for all
the info all contributors. Lee-boards was the term I was looking
for. Altyhough a bit late, thanx!

Regards,

Jeroen, I don't think I contributed much except perhaps to provide the
catalyst for some interesting discussion. Like you, though, I have
learned a lot and will likely learn more about the Titanic once Bouler
has a chance to respond.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!"

"HEMI - Powered" wrote in message
...
Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

[snip]
One could draw a similar comparison in modern nautical terms
between a huge lake ore carrier or super tanker vs. greyhounds of
the fleet such as destroyers, fast carriers, or even the once proud
passenger liners such as the SS United States or the first Queen
Elizabeth. In fact, had Capt. Smith of the Titanic not been so
concerned with setting a new speed record for a transatlantic
crossing on a ship's maiden voyage, he would have both slowed down
and move 100 miles or so south when warned about the many sightings
of icebergs in his path, but he decided to take the risk because
being more conservative but decreasing his risk would have cost him
nearly a day's steaming time, a decision that he learned to his
sorrow was fatal for many hundreds of passengers, crew, and
himself.

They are still investigating on that disaster.
I just read an article (no not on Whacopediagrin) that they were
buildin to many large ships like Titanic and they had not enough
good iron for the rivets and used bad iron rivets for the bow of
the Titanic, one of the reasons the ship sunk so fast.
If I'll find that site I will post it, but I know there are a lot of
rumours about the Titanic.

There are really two parts of the Titanic disaster/tragedy still being
investigated: the causes related to Capt. Smith's decision to
(apparently) ignore warnings from other vessels and modern information
just now coming to light as to structural weaknesses in the hull of the
ship itself. For the latter, one can point to the design standards for
metalurgy and riveting of the day as well as theories still being
investigated as to whether a gash was actually ripped open on the
starboard side or just many plates that buckled. Also, new information
suggests that the bottom of the hull fatally scraped along an
outcropping the the ice berg which ruptured the hill longitudinally for
some distance. Both are virtually impossible to prove or disprove even
with several successful dives on the wreakage site because the hull
sits in a position where it is impossible to determine a root cause and
reluctance to bring up any more steel makes it difficult to do more
extensive metalurgy studies. For the former, one can read the eye
witness accounts of the sinking from survivors and see gross
inconsistencies, such as whether the hull did or did not break in half
before the ship went down (it is now clearly known that it did crack in
half as the bow and stern sections of the wreakage are a couple of
miles apart).

And then, we can discuss the primative and dangerous safety standards
of the day wrt life boats, etc. Thank God, though, at least for
wireless. Now, for many aspects of the Titanic sinking, Bouler, you're
into MY areas of expertise, especially those of engineering and amateur
historian, but NOT those of a nautical nature per se.

Interesting read so far. And as far as I know nothing said is incorrect.
But I'd like to add another reason why the Titanic sunk. The water tight
bulkheads were only water tight to 8 feet and the ceilings in those bulk-
heads were 10 feet high (I am probably wrong about the height, but you
get the idea). Once one of the bulkheads started overflowing to another,
they all started to fill, and then the ship was doomed. And another little
side note about the steel. Even if the steel had passed the standards
for the day, it was never tested for the cold waters of the North Atlantic.
And the cold makes the steel much more brittle.

Of course it goes without saying that a double bottomed hull would have
saved the ship anyway.

wizofwas

wizofwas added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

[snip my own testimony]
And then, we can discuss the primative and dangerous safety
standards of the day wrt life boats, etc. Thank God, though, at
least for wireless. Now, for many aspects of the Titanic sinking,
Bouler, you're into MY areas of expertise, especially those of
engineering and amateur historian, but NOT those of a nautical
nature per se.

Interesting read so far. And as far as I know nothing said is
incorrect. But I'd like to add another reason why the Titanic sunk.
The water tight bulkheads were only water tight to 8 feet and the
ceilings in those bulk- heads were 10 feet high (I am probably wrong
about the height, but you get the idea). Once one of the bulkheads
started overflowing to another, they all started to fill, and then
the ship was doomed. And another little side note about the steel.
Even if the steel had passed the standards for the day, it was never
tested for the cold waters of the North Atlantic. And the cold makes
the steel much more brittle.

Thank you for the vote of confidence on my recollections, wiz. You are
obviously correct about the height of the bulkheads guarded by water
tight doors as well as the number of doors themselves. The designers
simply couldn't imagine a situation where so much water would rush in
as to begin to sink the ship by the bow enough to go over the top of
the bulkheads, which is precisely what DID happen. I glossed over this
as part of a very short statement on the standards of the day for ship
construction that led to the belief whether correct or what turned out
to be totally incorrect that Titanic was "unsinkable."

Another much more recent example is the 1955 or so sinking of the
Italian liner, Andrea Dorea hit by the Swedish ship Stockholm about 1/3
of the way aft right into the side of the hull. The ice-breaker bow of
the Stockholm literally cut a swath almost from top to bottom of the
Doria and likewise overwhelmed her much improved watertight bulkheads,
even in warm temperatures and with far stronger steels. But, and this
is extremely important, only around 50 lives were lost, all I believe
directly in the path of the initial hit. The ship stayed afloat for
many hours, my recollection is perhaps 8 hours or so, well enough time
to evacuate the passengers to life boats now mandated to be sufficient
for all aboard. So, there wasn't an "unsinkable" ship in 1912, not in
1955, and none in 2008, but a LOT more so these day, I should think.

Of course it goes without saying that a double bottomed hull would
have saved the ship anyway.

Yes, 'tis also quite true. For strictly financial reasons, a double-
bottom was omitted from Titanic and even still so today except perhaps
in cases where a sinking or partial sinking causes environmental
damage, e.g., an oil tanker. But, it is also tragic that for financial
reasons, a decision was made by Titanic's builders to limit the
thickness of the hull plates in order to save the cost of steel, cost
of assembly time and labor, and weight which in turn would have
required either much larger and expensive engines or slower speeds or
both. And, that isn't what you want to to do if you're the CEO of White
Star Lines!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!"

"HEMI - Powered" schreef in bericht
...

There are really two parts of the Titanic disaster/tragedy still being
investigated: the causes related to Capt. Smith's decision to
(apparently) ignore warnings from other vessels and modern information
just now coming to light as to structural weaknesses in the hull of the
ship itself. For the latter, one can point to the design standards for
metalurgy and riveting of the day as well as theories still being
investigated as to whether a gash was actually ripped open on the
starboard side or just many plates that buckled. Also, new information
suggests that the bottom of the hull fatally scraped along an
outcropping the the ice berg which ruptured the hill longitudinally for
some distance. Both are virtually impossible to prove or disprove even
with several successful dives on the wreakage site because the hull
sits in a position where it is impossible to determine a root cause and
reluctance to bring up any more steel makes it difficult to do more
extensive metalurgy studies. For the former, one can read the eye
witness accounts of the sinking from survivors and see gross
inconsistencies, such as whether the hull did or did not break in half
before the ship went down (it is now clearly known that it did crack in
half as the bow and stern sections of the wreakage are a couple of
miles apart).

You're very well informed.

And then, we can discuss the primative and dangerous safety standards
of the day wrt life boats, etc. Thank God, though, at least for
wireless. Now, for many aspects of the Titanic sinking, Bouler, you're
into MY areas of expertise, especially those of engineering and amateur
historian, but NOT those of a nautical nature per se.

I had the feeling I was stimulating you in this case and I as rightgrin

Have a good day and thanks for a stimulating discussion!

It was not that bad Jerry;-)

Thank you, Bouler, I appreciate the critique. It is better not to
lead with one's chin when venturing into areas where one does not
have a lot of knowledge and/or is unsure of one's facts, don't you
think?

Very wise spoken Jerry.

I learned this trick from an older engineer early in my Chrysler career
when I still thought I was God's gift to the science and practice of
engineering. Briefly stated, I was told quite profanely and quite
abruptly that if one thinks they know, say, 85% of a given thing and
wish to find out the rest from the true experts, the LAST thing to do
is state all the stuff already known. Rather, I was told, to be very
humble and ask the expert to explain the basics of the issue, listen
patiently during the 85% already known, then perk up the ears when the
remaining 15% is told. The advantage, which I came to find out later
was especially valuable, is that the true expert is now one's friend
and my reputation is enhanced as a reasonable person rather than what
some people call a smart-ass or young whipper snapper. You might recall
during our gettting to know each other phase here that I used this
technique politely to learn the true nature of the on-topic ships for
this NG under the guise of asking a question about my understanding of
the term "tall ship", and NOT stating my facts as if they were the
Gospel because while I thought I was correct, I KNEW that you would
have the right definition for the various categories of sail and
powered boats and ships.

Again, thanks for the excellent discussion.

Very smart after all;-)
Nobody knows 100% of something is my humble opinion.
A specialist is someone who knows almost everything about almost nothing.
--
Greetings
Bouler (The Netherlands)

Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

There are really two parts of the Titanic disaster/tragedy still
being investigated: the causes related to Capt. Smith's decision to
(apparently) ignore warnings from other vessels and modern
information just now coming to light as to structural weaknesses in
the hull of the ship itself. For the latter, one can point to the
design standards for metalurgy and riveting of the day as well as
theories still being investigated as to whether a gash was actually
ripped open on the starboard side or just many plates that buckled.
Also, new information suggests that the bottom of the hull fatally
scraped along an outcropping the the ice berg which ruptured the
hill longitudinally for some distance. Both are virtually
impossible to prove or disprove even with several successful dives
on the wreakage site because the hull sits in a position where it
is impossible to determine a root cause and reluctance to bring up
any more steel makes it difficult to do more extensive metalurgy
studies. For the former, one can read the eye witness accounts of
the sinking from survivors and see gross inconsistencies, such as
whether the hull did or did not break in half before the ship went
down (it is now clearly known that it did crack in half as the bow
and stern sections of the wreakage are a couple of miles apart).

You're very well informed.

Thank you, I try. This stuff does interest me, although I do have to
admit many areas where my technical expertise is severly lacking. I
know I burned DVDs from some History Channel episodes maybe a year or
so ago. If I get ambitious enough, I'll try to find them but I have
made a mental note to re-record them again on my DVR. It's a dumb
coincidence that a rather long episode or two aired just last week, I
think, relating the story of Titanic's construction, it's major
structural and safety weaknesses, details of the sinking itself, and
results of the most recent dives on the wreak, which I think began in
2002 and maybe ended a year or two later (but I'm rather hazy about
that, please help me out if you can).

And then, we can discuss the primative and dangerous safety
standards of the day wrt life boats, etc. Thank God, though, at
least for wireless. Now, for many aspects of the Titanic sinking,
Bouler, you're into MY areas of expertise, especially those of
engineering and amateur historian, but NOT those of a nautical
nature per se.

I had the feeling I was stimulating you in this case and I as
rightgrin

Maybe I should have put in a grin or two of my own, but each of us is
gifted in different ways. Perhaps one of mine to compensate for lack of
foreign language skills is what people tell me is a logical mind and an
insatiable appetite for new information. In fact, it has been a basic
philosphy of mine back at least to my High School days as a teen-ager
that learning is a life-long endeavor. Unfortunately, ALL of my
classmates in Engineering School were like me and I suddently found
myself as a brand new freshman in 1965 going from top 5% in my H.S.
class to about the bottom 5-10% and on academic probation for 3
trimesters. One more and I'd have flunked out. Still in all, I barely
made it, I recall something like only a 2.32 or so GPA. Lots of pretty
smart men and women go to engineering school and the admissions process
we used here prior to affirmative action initiatives guaranteed that
only the best of the best got in.

Now, with THAT as the statistical "population" upon which grades are
"curved", it isn't hard to see that I might've been able to understand
what the hell was happening and still damn near flunk out! But, that's
as it should be, I suppose. Who'd want cars or buildings or ships
designed by engineers who are pretty damn dumb? So, knowing how tough
it was for me as an undergraduate made it crystal clear that I could
not earn even a master's degree or earn Michigan Professional
Engineer's Certificate.

Have a good day and thanks for a stimulating discussion!

It was not that bad Jerry;-)

Thank you, Bouler, I appreciate the critique. It is better not to
lead with one's chin when venturing into areas where one does not
have a lot of knowledge and/or is unsure of one's facts, don't
you think?

Very wise spoken Jerry.

I learned this trick from an older engineer early in my Chrysler
career when I still thought I was God's gift to the science and
practice of engineering. Briefly stated, I was told quite profanely
and quite abruptly that if one thinks they know, say, 85% of a
given thing and wish to find out the rest from the true experts,
the LAST thing to do is state all the stuff already known. Rather,
I was told, to be very humble and ask the expert to explain the
basics of the issue, listen patiently during the 85% already known,
then perk up the ears when the remaining 15% is told. The
advantage, which I came to find out later was especially valuable,
is that the true expert is now one's friend and my reputation is
enhanced as a reasonable person rather than what some people call a
smart-ass or young whipper snapper. You might recall during our
gettting to know each other phase here that I used this technique
politely to learn the true nature of the on-topic ships for this NG
under the guise of asking a question about my understanding of the
term "tall ship", and NOT stating my facts as if they were the
Gospel because while I thought I was correct, I KNEW that you would
have the right definition for the various categories of sail and
powered boats and ships.

Again, thanks for the excellent discussion.

Very smart after all;-)
Nobody knows 100% of something is my humble opinion.
A specialist is someone who knows almost everything about almost
nothing.

I agree. Just like the gun slinger days of the old American West, where
there was ALWAYS someone faster on the draw, there is always someone
smarter than you and wealthier than you. But, there is also at least
one person dumber and poorer than you, also! grin here, no insult
intended Seriously, one of my favorite saying from the Dirty Harry cop
movies is "a man's GOT to know his limitations", that is, be humble one
can NEVER know it all, no matter how hard or long one tries, because
the colllective body of knowledge on even a narrow subject is exploding
so fast.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!"

"HEMI - Powered" schreef in bericht
...

You're very well informed.

Thank you, I try. This stuff does interest me, although I do have to
admit many areas where my technical expertise is severly lacking.

The same problem I have Jerry, its a hobby and all the technical stuff is
difficult for a teacher espechially in English.
I never worked with ships cars or other technical stuff, so you much more
technical with your history at Chryslers

I know I burned DVDs from some History Channel episodes maybe a year or
so ago. If I get ambitious enough, I'll try to find them but I have
made a mental note to re-record them again on my DVR. It's a dumb
coincidence that a rather long episode or two aired just last week, I
think, relating the story of Titanic's construction, it's major
structural and safety weaknesses, details of the sinking itself, and
results of the most recent dives on the wreak, which I think began in
2002 and maybe ended a year or two later (but I'm rather hazy about
that, please help me out if you can).

Sorry Jerry I cant.

And then, we can discuss the primative and dangerous safety
standards of the day wrt life boats, etc. Thank God, though, at
least for wireless. Now, for many aspects of the Titanic sinking,
Bouler, you're into MY areas of expertise, especially those of
engineering and amateur historian, but NOT those of a nautical
nature per se.

I had the feeling I was stimulating you in this case and I as
rightgrin

Maybe I should have put in a grin or two of my own, but each of us is
gifted in different ways. Perhaps one of mine to compensate for lack of
foreign language skills is what people tell me is a logical mind and an
insatiable appetite for new information. In fact, it has been a basic
philosphy of mine back at least to my High School days as a teen-ager
that learning is a life-long endeavor. Unfortunately, ALL of my
classmates in Engineering School were like me and I suddently found
myself as a brand new freshman in 1965 going from top 5% in my H.S.
class to about the bottom 5-10% and on academic probation for 3
trimesters. One more and I'd have flunked out. Still in all, I barely
made it, I recall something like only a 2.32 or so GPA.

Could you explain that, we have a comlete other schoolsystem, so I don't
have a clue what 2,32 GPA means.
The only thing thats clear is that you had to work hard to graduate, so we
can shake hands.
I completely agree that learning is a life-long endeavor, for you, for me
because we are interested in a lot of things.
Not everybody thinks the same way.

Lots of pretty
smart men and women go to engineering school and the admissions process
we used here prior to affirmative action initiatives guaranteed that
only the best of the best got in.

Thats life Jerry, for my school to study for teacher there were 120 people
that want that study at that specific school, after a starting examination
only 48, the maximum the school could handle got that chance I I was one of
them.

Now, with THAT as the statistical "population" upon which grades are
"curved", it isn't hard to see that I might've been able to understand
what the hell was happening and still damn near flunk out! But, that's
as it should be, I suppose. Who'd want cars or buildings or ships
designed by engineers who are pretty damn dumb? So, knowing how tough
it was for me as an undergraduate made it crystal clear that I could
not earn even a master's degree or earn Michigan Professional
Engineer's Certificate.

I understand but I think we get far off topic this should fit better in an
e-mail.

Have a good day and thanks for a stimulating discussion!

It was not that bad Jerry;-)

Thank you, Bouler, I appreciate the critique. It is better not to
lead with one's chin when venturing into areas where one does not
have a lot of knowledge and/or is unsure of one's facts, don't
you think?

Very wise spoken Jerry.

I learned this trick from an older engineer early in my Chrysler
career when I still thought I was God's gift to the science and
practice of engineering. Briefly stated, I was told quite profanely
and quite abruptly that if one thinks they know, say, 85% of a
given thing and wish to find out the rest from the true experts,
the LAST thing to do is state all the stuff already known. Rather,
I was told, to be very humble and ask the expert to explain the
basics of the issue, listen patiently during the 85% already known,
then perk up the ears when the remaining 15% is told. The
advantage, which I came to find out later was especially valuable,
is that the true expert is now one's friend and my reputation is
enhanced as a reasonable person rather than what some people call a
smart-ass or young whipper snapper. You might recall during our
gettting to know each other phase here that I used this technique
politely to learn the true nature of the on-topic ships for this NG
under the guise of asking a question about my understanding of the
term "tall ship", and NOT stating my facts as if they were the
Gospel because while I thought I was correct, I KNEW that you would
have the right definition for the various categories of sail and
powered boats and ships.

Again, thanks for the excellent discussion.

Very smart after all;-)
Nobody knows 100% of something is my humble opinion.
A specialist is someone who knows almost everything about almost
nothing.

I agree. Just like the gun slinger days of the old American West, where
there was ALWAYS someone faster on the draw, there is always someone
smarter than you and wealthier than you. But, there is also at least
one person dumber and poorer than you, also! grin here, no insult
intended Seriously, one of my favorite saying from the Dirty Harry cop
movies is "a man's GOT to know his limitations", that is, be humble one
can NEVER know it all, no matter how hard or long one tries, because
the colllective body of knowledge on even a narrow subject is exploding
so fast.

I think that was the best Dirty Harry ever said and I agree completely.
Yes I know those movies from Clint Eastwood, I think he is in politics now.
Now I think I need some sleep, its 4.30 AM;-)
--
Greetings
Bouler (The Netherlands)

Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

You're very well informed.

Thank you, I try. This stuff does interest me, although I do have
to admit many areas where my technical expertise is severly
lacking.

The same problem I have Jerry, its a hobby and all the technical
stuff is difficult for a teacher espechially in English.
I never worked with ships cars or other technical stuff, so you much
more technical with your history at Chryslers

Bouler, it has been said that anyone can give an hour talk on any
subject, even one they know nothing at all about. But, to give an
effective 15 minute talk or to distill a complex and technical subject
down to only 5 minutes, both of which I had to do on my job, is VERY
difficult indeed.

I most appreciate the complements you extend to me on my knowledge of
cars and other things. However, there is likely far LESS here than
meets the eye, meaning that while I can speak reasonably intelligently
about all cars, not just Chrysler, I cannot speak to specifics of even
cars designed during my tenure at Chrysler. The reason I can at least
speak to most anything vehicular regardless of company or national
origin is that the basics of the vehicle product development process
from design (styling) to engineering to testing to tooling to
manufacturing and assembly is pretty much universal throughout the
world. What separates the better car companies from the 2nd and 3rd
tier crowd is how well they APPLY basic principles and how much
proprietary knowledge they can accumulate and effectively implement to
increase features, fuel economy, safety, etc. while at the same time
increasing quality, reliability, and durability (those are 3 different
things, ask if interested) at the lowest possible cost.

I know I burned DVDs from some History Channel episodes maybe a
year or
so ago. If I get ambitious enough, I'll try to find them but I have
made a mental note to re-record them again on my DVR. It's a dumb
coincidence that a rather long episode or two aired just last week,
I think, relating the story of Titanic's construction, it's major
structural and safety weaknesses, details of the sinking itself,
and results of the most recent dives on the wreak, which I think
began in 2002 and maybe ended a year or two later (but I'm rather
hazy about that, please help me out if you can).

Sorry Jerry I cant.

OK, if these shows come on again, I'll try to snag them and perhaps I
can mail you a DVD of something you may not have seen in The
Netherlands.

Maybe I should have put in a grin or two of my own, but each of
us is gifted in different ways. Perhaps one of mine to compensate
for lack of foreign language skills is what people tell me is a
logical mind and an insatiable appetite for new information. In
fact, it has been a basic philosphy of mine back at least to my
High School days as a teen-ager that learning is a life-long
endeavor. Unfortunately, ALL of my classmates in Engineering School
were like me and I suddently found myself as a brand new freshman
in 1965 going from top 5% in my H.S. class to about the bottom
5-10% and on academic probation for 3 trimesters. One more and I'd
have flunked out. Still in all, I barely made it, I recall
something like only a 2.32 or so GPA.

Could you explain that, we have a comlete other schoolsystem, so I
don't have a clue what 2,32 GPA means.

Sorry, I did it again, damnit! GPA means Grade Point Average. We use a
4.0 grading system in community colleges and universities where 0.0 is
an E or F, 0.5 is barely passing maybe with a D-, 2.0 is a C, 3.0 is a
B and 4.0 is an A. My school, Oakland University, used a 4.3 system
where 4.3 was essentially an A+. I hope your schools at least use a
similar letter grading system.

To recap, American schools are basically organized this way: K-6
(Kindergarten through 6th grade) is called "elementary school, grades 7
and 8 "middle school" and 9-12 "high school." Colleges and universities
are divided into "undergraduate" which means one hasn't yet earned the
most basic degree, a bachelor of science or bachelor or arts, and
"graduate" degrees which include a masters or PhD (Doctor of
Philosophy) and also MD (Medical Doctor), DDS (Doctor of Dental
Surgery), and LLD (Letter of Law Doctorate, I think, i.e., an attorney.

So, under my university's grading system, I graduated barely above the
minimum necessary, a 2.0, with what amounted to be a low C+.

The only thing thats clear is that you had to work hard to graduate,
so we can shake hands.
I completely agree that learning is a life-long endeavor, for you,
for me because we are interested in a lot of things.
Not everybody thinks the same way.

Yeah, I worked my skinny ass off, Bouler! Here's what one of my days
was like: I'd get up early, eat a breakfast of oatmeal or bacon and
eggs, finish up any homework and commute to school Go to school and
study on campus until early afternoon, return home, eat a fast dinner
and go to work in a department store from 5-9 PM to earn gas money and
money to go on dates with girls. Then, study until about midnight or
when I fell asleep at the kitchen table. On weekends, I'd date, have
fun with my friends, go cruising to try to pick up girls or maybe
engage in drag racing at night while working Saturday and Sunday 8
hours and studying in whatever time was left besides sleeping.

The goal for me was two-fold: earn a degree that would enable me to try
for a high-paying job (which is why I chose engineering which is still
the highest paying job with a B.S. degree, the most I hoped to attain)
and stay out of the Army and a rice paddy in Viet Nam at least long
enough to earn my degree. Our draft system believed that having a
college degree, especially a technical one, was an important asset
militarily even if one did not become an officer (I was an enlisted
man, coming out a sergeant with 3 stripes after 20 months), so we had a
system of student deferrments that allowed only 4 years for college.
So, I HAD to get it done. I started work the next day after
commencement and fought the draft for about a year and lost. But, as it
turned out while Army life was hardly fun at the time, I DID get a
chance to tour much of southern Europe and the experience of being
completely on my own matured me greatly and turned out to be quite
useful in my later career.

Lots of pretty
smart men and women go to engineering school and the admissions
process we used here prior to affirmative action initiatives
guaranteed that only the best of the best got in.

Thats life Jerry, for my school to study for teacher there were 120
people that want that study at that specific school, after a
starting examination only 48, the maximum the school could handle
got that chance I I was one of them.

I did not have to take the standard testing of the day, such as the SAT
(Scholasitic Appitude Test) as a senior in High School, but my grades
and a recommendation from my counselor, principle, and at least one
teacher were required. Then, I had to compete against all other
applicants based on the number of freshman class openings. Once
accepted, I spent two entire days of mathematics and English aptitude
written testing, one day for each. Talk about difficult! Wow! My
English scores were OK but my math score was barely passing. My advisor
told me that if I actually cut it and graduated I would be the first in
his experience with a math aptitude that low. That sobered me up -
fast! He helped me a great deal through the many tank traps along the
way such as scheduling conflicts and getting me into the lesser
difficulty liberal arts classes that were required beyond what were
called "core curriculum" for my engineering school degree.

I don't know what the numbers were at my college as I didn't have
access to the number of applicants nor the number who failed to make
the cut on the 2-day testing gig, but I would suspect it was similary
to your experience. My engineering class itself was small, maybe 40 or
50 (I've always wished that OU had a yearbook, but they didn't) and I
think they all managed to graduate. That I know of, my ranking was 4th
from the bottom, or maybe 5th, but no higher. The class was divided
along lines of intelligence and grades informally. The smart guys
studied together and refusted to help us not so smart guys because they
wanted us to get lousy grades so the "curve", or statistical grading
system to decide the numeric score you're probably familiary with is
helped by the number of people on a test that score below the
statistical median or mean and skew the grade distribution to the low
end making it easier to earn a 3.0 or 4.0.

Very smart after all;-)
Nobody knows 100% of something is my humble opinion.
A specialist is someone who knows almost everything about almost
nothing.

I agree. Just like the gun slinger days of the old American West,
where there was ALWAYS someone faster on the draw, there is always
someone smarter than you and wealthier than you. But, there is also
at least one person dumber and poorer than you, also! grin here,
no insult intended Seriously, one of my favorite saying from the
Dirty Harry cop movies is "a man's GOT to know his limitations",
that is, be humble one can NEVER know it all, no matter how hard or
long one tries, because the colllective body of knowledge on even a
narrow subject is exploding so fast.

I think that was the best Dirty Harry ever said and I agree
completely. Yes I know those movies from Clint Eastwood, I think he
is in politics now. Now I think I need some sleep, its 4.30 AM;-)

Most people like his other quotes, basically "this is a .44 Magnum and
will blow you head clean off, now do you feel lucky? well, do you,
punk?" Yeah, that's OK, but I liked the other one because it was useful
in real-life and not just cop movies. It is interestint that you are
familiar with the Dirty Harry series. It was a money maker but not an
award-winning movie. I often use movies to illustrate things to you and
others and I wonder a lot if my international friends know what the
hell I'm talking about! grin

--
HP, aka Jerry

"If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck"

"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht
...
snip
Bouler, it has been said that anyone can give an hour talk on any
subject, even one they know nothing at all about. But, to give an
effective 15 minute talk or to distill a complex and technical subject
down to only 5 minutes, both of which I had to do on my job, is VERY
difficult indeed.

I most appreciate the complements you extend to me on my knowledge of
cars and other things. However, there is likely far LESS here than
meets the eye, meaning that while I can speak reasonably intelligently
about all cars, not just Chrysler, I cannot speak to specifics of even
cars designed during my tenure at Chrysler. The reason I can at least
speak to most anything vehicular regardless of company or national
origin is that the basics of the vehicle product development process
from design (styling) to engineering to testing to tooling to
manufacturing and assembly is pretty much universal throughout the
world. What separates the better car companies from the 2nd and 3rd
tier crowd is how well they APPLY basic principles and how much
proprietary knowledge they can accumulate and effectively implement to
increase features, fuel economy, safety, etc. while at the same time
increasing quality, reliability, and durability (those are 3 different
things, ask if interested) at the lowest possible cost.

I think carfactories can build cars that go on for many more years, but at
the same time the're digging their own grave.

I know I burned DVDs from some History Channel episodes maybe a
year or
so ago. If I get ambitious enough, I'll try to find them but I have
made a mental note to re-record them again on my DVR. It's a dumb
coincidence that a rather long episode or two aired just last week,
I think, relating the story of Titanic's construction, it's major
structural and safety weaknesses, details of the sinking itself,
and results of the most recent dives on the wreak, which I think
began in 2002 and maybe ended a year or two later (but I'm rather
hazy about that, please help me out if you can).

Sorry Jerry I cant.

OK, if these shows come on again, I'll try to snag them and perhaps I
can mail you a DVD of something you may not have seen in The
Netherlands.

That would be nice.

Maybe I should have put in a grin or two of my own, but each of
us is gifted in different ways. Perhaps one of mine to compensate
for lack of foreign language skills is what people tell me is a
logical mind and an insatiable appetite for new information. In
fact, it has been a basic philosphy of mine back at least to my
High School days as a teen-ager that learning is a life-long
endeavor. Unfortunately, ALL of my classmates in Engineering School
were like me and I suddently found myself as a brand new freshman
in 1965 going from top 5% in my H.S. class to about the bottom
5-10% and on academic probation for 3 trimesters. One more and I'd
have flunked out. Still in all, I barely made it, I recall
something like only a 2.32 or so GPA.

Could you explain that, we have a comlete other schoolsystem, so I
don't have a clue what 2,32 GPA means.

Sorry, I did it again, damnit! GPA means Grade Point Average. We use a
4.0 grading system in community colleges and universities where 0.0 is
an E or F, 0.5 is barely passing maybe with a D-, 2.0 is a C, 3.0 is a
B and 4.0 is an A. My school, Oakland University, used a 4.3 system
where 4.3 was essentially an A+. I hope your schools at least use a
similar letter grading system.

Most schools use a decimal system from 1 till 10, of course 1 is not very
good and thats an understatement, but 10 is passing a test without mistakes.
Avrage 6 is suficcient to go to a higher class.

To recap, American schools are basically organized this way: K-6
(Kindergarten through 6th grade) is called "elementary school, grades 7
and 8 "middle school" and 9-12 "high school." Colleges and universities
are divided into "undergraduate" which means one hasn't yet earned the
most basic degree, a bachelor of science or bachelor or arts, and
"graduate" degrees which include a masters or PhD (Doctor of
Philosophy) and also MD (Medical Doctor), DDS (Doctor of Dental
Surgery), and LLD (Letter of Law Doctorate, I think, i.e., an attorney.

Schoolsystem is very different in The Netherlands since I was young and I
can hardly explain the system now.
Basisschool (children from 4 till 12), kindegarten is included but the name
does not exist anymore.
They are talking in groups, grop 1 till group 8.
After that school is a very complex system I cannot explain anymore.
University is of course the highest grade.

So, under my university's grading system, I graduated barely above the
minimum necessary, a 2.0, with what amounted to be a low C+.

My youngest daughter went always for the minimum because there were much
things nicer than school, she only worked hard when she decided to become a
maternity nurse (says my dictionary)
She looks like her father, till my 16th I did not study very hard.

The only thing thats clear is that you had to work hard to graduate,
so we can shake hands.
I completely agree that learning is a life-long endeavor, for you,
for me because we are interested in a lot of things.
Not everybody thinks the same way.

Yeah, I worked my skinny ass off, Bouler! Here's what one of my days
was like: I'd get up early, eat a breakfast of oatmeal or bacon and
eggs, finish up any homework and commute to school Go to school and
study on campus until early afternoon, return home, eat a fast dinner
and go to work in a department store from 5-9 PM to earn gas money and
money to go on dates with girls. Then, study until about midnight or
when I fell asleep at the kitchen table. On weekends, I'd date, have
fun with my friends, go cruising to try to pick up girls or maybe
engage in drag racing at night while working Saturday and Sunday 8
hours and studying in whatever time was left besides sleeping.

Because I was studyïng in a boardingschool we studied 6 days of the week and
had specific studyhours and you did not get a chance to miss them, the
punishment was most of the time staying in school the whole weekend.
We had not much choice we simply had to.
No time to earn some money and not much time to have fun, exept when you
were doïng something cultural so me and my friends played in a band, were
singing in a lot of choirs, we did everything possible to get out of the
building to make fun and of course with girls.
Sometimes it was dangerous because you could be send home and never
graduate.
4 times I was very near but I came away with it.
I did not choose the school for earning a lot of money, I wanted to educate
children and pass my knowledge to them.
After all it was not payïng bad an we had lots of holidays;-)

The goal for me was two-fold: earn a degree that would enable me to try
for a high-paying job (which is why I chose engineering which is still
the highest paying job with a B.S. degree, the most I hoped to attain)
and stay out of the Army and a rice paddy in Viet Nam at least long
enough to earn my degree. Our draft system believed that having a
college degree, especially a technical one, was an important asset
militarily even if one did not become an officer (I was an enlisted
man, coming out a sergeant with 3 stripes after 20 months), so we had a
system of student deferrments that allowed only 4 years for college.
So, I HAD to get it done. I started work the next day after
commencement and fought the draft for about a year and lost. But, as it
turned out while Army life was hardly fun at the time, I DID get a
chance to tour much of southern Europe and the experience of being
completely on my own matured me greatly and turned out to be quite
useful in my later career.

Lots of pretty
smart men and women go to engineering school and the admissions
process we used here prior to affirmative action initiatives
guaranteed that only the best of the best got in.

Thats life Jerry, for my school to study for teacher there were 120
people that want that study at that specific school, after a
starting examination only 48, the maximum the school could handle
got that chance I I was one of them.

I did not have to take the standard testing of the day, such as the SAT
(Scholasitic Appitude Test) as a senior in High School, but my grades
and a recommendation from my counselor, principle, and at least one
teacher were required. Then, I had to compete against all other
applicants based on the number of freshman class openings. Once
accepted, I spent two entire days of mathematics and English aptitude
written testing, one day for each. Talk about difficult! Wow! My
English scores were OK but my math score was barely passing. My advisor
told me that if I actually cut it and graduated I would be the first in
his experience with a math aptitude that low. That sobered me up -
fast! He helped me a great deal through the many tank traps along the
way such as scheduling conflicts and getting me into the lesser
difficulty liberal arts classes that were required beyond what were
called "core curriculum" for my engineering school degree.

I don't know what the numbers were at my college as I didn't have
access to the number of applicants nor the number who failed to make
the cut on the 2-day testing gig, but I would suspect it was similary
to your experience. My engineering class itself was small, maybe 40 or
50 (I've always wished that OU had a yearbook, but they didn't) and I
think they all managed to graduate. That I know of, my ranking was 4th
from the bottom, or maybe 5th, but no higher. The class was divided
along lines of intelligence and grades informally. The smart guys
studied together and refusted to help us not so smart guys because they
wanted us to get lousy grades so the "curve", or statistical grading
system to decide the numeric score you're probably familiary with is
helped by the number of people on a test that score below the
statistical median or mean and skew the grade distribution to the low
end making it easier to earn a 3.0 or 4.0.

We helped each other a lot, maybe because teaching each other is a way of
learning too.
I still heve many contacts from that time and we had several reunions.
Next year again a reunion because its than 45 years ago we graduated.

Very smart after all;-)
Nobody knows 100% of something is my humble opinion.
A specialist is someone who knows almost everything about almost
nothing.

I agree. Just like the gun slinger days of the old American West,
where there was ALWAYS someone faster on the draw, there is always
someone smarter than you and wealthier than you. But, there is also
at least one person dumber and poorer than you, also! grin here,
no insult intended Seriously, one of my favorite saying from the
Dirty Harry cop movies is "a man's GOT to know his limitations",
that is, be humble one can NEVER know it all, no matter how hard or
long one tries, because the colllective body of knowledge on even a
narrow subject is exploding so fast.

I think that was the best Dirty Harry ever said and I agree
completely. Yes I know those movies from Clint Eastwood, I think he
is in politics now. Now I think I need some sleep, its 4.30 AM;-)

Most people like his other quotes, basically "this is a .44 Magnum and
will blow you head clean off, now do you feel lucky? well, do you,
punk?" Yeah, that's OK, but I liked the other one because it was useful
in real-life and not just cop movies. It is interestint that you are
familiar with the Dirty Harry series. It was a money maker but not an
award-winning movie. I often use movies to illustrate things to you and
others and I wonder a lot if my international friends know what the
hell I'm talking about! grin

Guns in America and guns in The Netherlands is world of difference.
Not many people have guns here and its even forbidden exept for policeman
and guards.
I think there are to many guns in the states.
--
Greetings
Bouler (The Netherlands)