Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:59:56 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 13:25:40 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: snip If you spent your time seeking facts, instead of playing head games with yourself, you might actually come up with something useful. /snip This seems to be a pandemic with economists and policy makers. The various economic/ideological "schools" now appear to be no more appropriate to today's top level socioeconomic/fiscal challenges, such as the disappearance [not just the off-shoring] of work, than do the "Carlist" or "Jacobite" positions. Times have moved [rapidly] on and they are still wandering around lost in the 1930s, debating exchange rates, emigration policy, inflation rates, and non-teriff trade barriers. Well, the study of economics is changing. I think you'll see a new generation, that was taught in a different way, starting to make their voices heard in the near future -- less theory, and more evidence-based research. My son has a degree in economics and a master's in mathematics. He represents one wing of it -- the econometrics, Big Data wing. It landed him a very good job, first with a think tank and now with a top-ranked consulting firm. But he's only 26; although he's co-authored a number of journal articles, he's not at a level where anyone outside of a narrow field would have heard his voice. The other is the Behavioral Economics wing. These are the ones who are taking cues from psychology to examine how real people behave economically in the real world. They have a lot to add to the conversation. Between the two, my bet is that what we hear from the economics profession is going to be very different in ten years or so. One major area of concern is their failure to appreciate that another layer of complexity has been abruptly "trowelled" over the existing micro and macro economic layers. This new "hyper-economics" [for lack of a better word] appears to be at least as different from macro as macro is from micro. This is not only due to the new globalization and rise of sovereign transnational corporations including the banks, but also to the rise of automation, Artificial Intelligence, bioengineering, nanotechnology, instantaneous world wide communications, and things we are not yet aware of. Complexity is a reason that pure theorizing is going to decline in importance. The theories get tangled up as more of them become involved in the equations. It's like differential equations in engineering, and real-world engineering has gravitated toward numerical analysis, such as FEA. Economics is going the same way. This is where econometrics comes in. You analyze data with statistics and calculus; you apply some knowledge and experience to the relationships; you build a model. Your model is a hypothesis. You test the model against predicted results. You refine it with new data. You see if you can simplify it by throwing out variables that you thought might be important but which prove to be irrelevant. If the model isn't giving good results, you re-think it, first looking for other variables that you missed. This is what my son does for a living. He just completed a big pricing model for a car company. It took three months of 7-day-a-week work. Today he left for Costa Rica to cool off. g Three days per month, for the next two years, he will test and refine the model as results come in. That's how much of economics is being done today. It applies to all sorts of things that economists study. -- Ed Huntress |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:59:56 -0500, F. George McDuffee wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 13:25:40 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: snip If you spent your time seeking facts, instead of playing head games with yourself, you might actually come up with something useful. /snip This seems to be a pandemic with economists and policy makers. The various economic/ideological "schools" now appear to be no more appropriate to today's top level socioeconomic/fiscal challenges, such as the disappearance [not just the off-shoring] of work, than do the "Carlist" or "Jacobite" positions. Times have moved [rapidly] on and they are still wandering around lost in the 1930s, debating exchange rates, emigration policy, inflation rates, and non-teriff trade barriers. Well, the study of economics is changing. I think you'll see a new generation, that was taught in a different way, starting to make their voices heard in the near future -- less theory, and more evidence-based research. My son has a degree in economics and a master's in mathematics. He represents one wing of it -- the econometrics, Big Data wing. It landed him a very good job, first with a think tank and now with a top-ranked consulting firm. But he's only 26; although he's co-authored a number of journal articles, he's not at a level where anyone outside of a narrow field would have heard his voice. The other is the Behavioral Economics wing. These are the ones who are taking cues from psychology to examine how real people behave economically in the real world. They have a lot to add to the conversation. Between the two, my bet is that what we hear from the economics profession is going to be very different in ten years or so. One major area of concern is their failure to appreciate that another layer of complexity has been abruptly "trowelled" over the existing micro and macro economic layers. This new "hyper-economics" [for lack of a better word] appears to be at least as different from macro as macro is from micro. This is not only due to the new globalization and rise of sovereign transnational corporations including the banks, but also to the rise of automation, Artificial Intelligence, bioengineering, nanotechnology, instantaneous world wide communications, and things we are not yet aware of. Complexity is a reason that pure theorizing is going to decline in importance. The theories get tangled up as more of them become involved in the equations. It's like differential equations in engineering, and real-world engineering has gravitated toward numerical analysis, such as FEA. Economics is going the same way. This is where econometrics comes in. You analyze data with statistics and calculus; you apply some knowledge and experience to the relationships; you build a model. Your model is a hypothesis. You test the model against predicted results. You refine it with new data. You see if you can simplify it by throwing out variables that you thought might be important but which prove to be irrelevant. If the model isn't giving good results, you re-think it, first looking for other variables that you missed. This is what my son does for a living. He just completed a big pricing model for a car company. It took three months of 7-day-a-week work. Today he left for Costa Rica to cool off. g Three days per month, for the next two years, he will test and refine the model as results come in. That's how much of economics is being done today. It applies to all sorts of things that economists study. -- Ed Huntress FEA works because the interactions between elements can be quantitatively characterized. The soft sciences have always lagged behind the hard ones because they can't fully understand the motives of and interactions between people. As Niven and Pournelle(?) wrote, the difference between lawyers and engineers is that the truths a lawyer seeks actively avoid discovery, and so it is with market research. -jsw -jsw |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 09:39:51 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:59:56 -0500, F. George McDuffee wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 13:25:40 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: snip If you spent your time seeking facts, instead of playing head games with yourself, you might actually come up with something useful. /snip This seems to be a pandemic with economists and policy makers. The various economic/ideological "schools" now appear to be no more appropriate to today's top level socioeconomic/fiscal challenges, such as the disappearance [not just the off-shoring] of work, than do the "Carlist" or "Jacobite" positions. Times have moved [rapidly] on and they are still wandering around lost in the 1930s, debating exchange rates, emigration policy, inflation rates, and non-teriff trade barriers. Well, the study of economics is changing. I think you'll see a new generation, that was taught in a different way, starting to make their voices heard in the near future -- less theory, and more evidence-based research. My son has a degree in economics and a master's in mathematics. He represents one wing of it -- the econometrics, Big Data wing. It landed him a very good job, first with a think tank and now with a top-ranked consulting firm. But he's only 26; although he's co-authored a number of journal articles, he's not at a level where anyone outside of a narrow field would have heard his voice. The other is the Behavioral Economics wing. These are the ones who are taking cues from psychology to examine how real people behave economically in the real world. They have a lot to add to the conversation. Between the two, my bet is that what we hear from the economics profession is going to be very different in ten years or so. One major area of concern is their failure to appreciate that another layer of complexity has been abruptly "trowelled" over the existing micro and macro economic layers. This new "hyper-economics" [for lack of a better word] appears to be at least as different from macro as macro is from micro. This is not only due to the new globalization and rise of sovereign transnational corporations including the banks, but also to the rise of automation, Artificial Intelligence, bioengineering, nanotechnology, instantaneous world wide communications, and things we are not yet aware of. Complexity is a reason that pure theorizing is going to decline in importance. The theories get tangled up as more of them become involved in the equations. It's like differential equations in engineering, and real-world engineering has gravitated toward numerical analysis, such as FEA. Economics is going the same way. This is where econometrics comes in. You analyze data with statistics and calculus; you apply some knowledge and experience to the relationships; you build a model. Your model is a hypothesis. You test the model against predicted results. You refine it with new data. You see if you can simplify it by throwing out variables that you thought might be important but which prove to be irrelevant. If the model isn't giving good results, you re-think it, first looking for other variables that you missed. This is what my son does for a living. He just completed a big pricing model for a car company. It took three months of 7-day-a-week work. Today he left for Costa Rica to cool off. g Three days per month, for the next two years, he will test and refine the model as results come in. That's how much of economics is being done today. It applies to all sorts of things that economists study. -- Ed Huntress FEA works because the interactions between elements can be quantitatively characterized. The soft sciences have always lagged behind the hard ones because they can't fully understand the motives of and interactions between people. As Niven and Pournelle(?) wrote, the difference between lawyers and engineers is that the truths a lawyer seeks actively avoid discovery, and so it is with market research. -jsw -jsw Having done a fair amount of market research, I don't think that's an accurate contrast. Market researchers don't *avoid* discovery; they just don't have the legal means to do it. But they certainly don't avoid it. They dig up every bit of competitive data that they can. I used to spend hours pouring over import data for clients, trying to tease the specific, by-company competitor data out of the government reports, which made an effort to disguise the by-company data. Sometimes they succeeded at hiding it, and sometimes I succeeded in digging it out. -- Ed Huntress |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 09:39:51 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: FEA works because the interactions between elements can be quantitatively characterized. The soft sciences have always lagged behind the hard ones because they can't fully understand the motives of and interactions between people. As Niven and Pournelle(?) wrote, the difference between lawyers and engineers is that the truths a lawyer seeks actively avoid discovery, and so it is with market research. -jsw -jsw Having done a fair amount of market research, I don't think that's an accurate contrast. Market researchers don't *avoid* discovery; they just don't have the legal means to do it. But they certainly don't avoid it. They dig up every bit of competitive data that they can. I used to spend hours pouring over import data for clients, trying to tease the specific, by-company competitor data out of the government reports, which made an effort to disguise the by-company data. Sometimes they succeeded at hiding it, and sometimes I succeeded in digging it out. -- Ed Huntress Have another coffee and reread what I posted. It's the facts themselves that avoid discovery, not the researchers, in a situation where revealing them would aid your business competitors. I spent my time in the Army keeping payroll data secret, not because anyone cares what a Lieutenant makes, but because the location where he receives it reveals troop deployments. Even the length of the encrypted stream is valuable to a spy because it reveals changes in the number of troops unless it's padded. Similar indirect analysis is valuable in commercial espionage. The CIA has large departments dedicated to collecting and analyzing open-source economic data to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of potential enemies. We had and used it to plan WW2 bombing raids on Japan because we had helped them build the factories we destroyed, and kept copies of the plans. Naturally we don't make it easy for others to reciprocate similarly against us. The government -shouldn't- release economic data in such detail that it will help the Chinese take over. Your difficulty was an unintended collateral consequence. The Titanium for Vietnam fighter jets came from the USSR, through a tortuous network that concealed its final destination. The Market Basket article I referenced told how they used intermediaries to buy up land to avoid revealing their intent and driving up the price. Those are examples of old tricks to deceive market, CIA, KGB, NSA et.al. analysts looking for patterns. As long as those trying to hide have incentive and means to pay better than those trying to find, they will attract the better brains. -jsw |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 09:09:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote: snip Complexity is a reason that pure theorizing is going to decline in importance. The theories get tangled up as more of them become involved in the equations. It's like differential equations in engineering, and real-world engineering has gravitated toward numerical analysis, such as FEA. Economics is going the same way. /snip Indeed, and this may well be a reason to adopt a far more pragmatic approach such as EvOp and Action Research methodology http://tinyurl.com/nffwfkz http://tinyurl.com/2rarbb rather than trying to predict the future, which Mandlebrot has demonstrated may well be impossible in other than the most general terms, one the order of "if its wintertime the temperature will be below average." http://tinyurl.com/pz5rmxp One of the major problems is the failure of the policy makers to formulate their goals and objectives in quantifiable, measurable and objective terms, and then to collect data to evaluate the effects of their policy on the areas of interest. [if the data is not available or can't be collected, its not quantifiable, measurable or objective]. It appears the unintended consequences and "side effects" of a policy frequently have more impact on the socioeconomy than to the objectives. Behavioral economics and non-rational economic decisions should have driven a stake through the heart of Fama's "efficient marketplace hypothesis" but so far it hasn't. While labor/time intensive, Stephenson's Q methodology http://tinyurl.com/nvdxfo would seem to offer far better insight into the market, e. g. The Alibaba IPO http://tinyurl.com/myf2vor. One of the major problems is getting agreement on exactly what the [non contradictory] objective are. Is it good or bad when the median wage increases? Is it good or bad when corporations pay less in taxes? Is it good or bad when unemployment or high? Much depends on which perspective or valiance you are responding from, i.e. individual (employee or CEO), business, industrial sector, aggrigiate/national, sovereign supranational corporation, etc. -- Unka' George "Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants, but debt is the money of slaves" -Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium" |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 09:39:51 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: FEA works because the interactions between elements can be quantitatively characterized. The soft sciences have always lagged behind the hard ones because they can't fully understand the motives of and interactions between people. As Niven and Pournelle(?) wrote, the difference between lawyers and engineers is that the truths a lawyer seeks actively avoid discovery, and so it is with market research. -jsw -jsw Having done a fair amount of market research, I don't think that's an accurate contrast. Market researchers don't *avoid* discovery; they just don't have the legal means to do it. But they certainly don't avoid it. They dig up every bit of competitive data that they can. I used to spend hours pouring over import data for clients, trying to tease the specific, by-company competitor data out of the government reports, which made an effort to disguise the by-company data. Sometimes they succeeded at hiding it, and sometimes I succeeded in digging it out. -- Ed Huntress Have another coffee and reread what I posted. It's the facts themselves that avoid discovery, not the researchers, in a situation where revealing them would aid your business competitors. Maybe you'll want to have another cup yourself. It was clear that your sentence contained a grammatical error; it just wasn't clear what kind of error you made. d8-) "Facts" don't have volition -- they don't "actively avoid" anything. I didn't think you were waxing lyrical and indulging in personification, because the previous statement was about people -- lawyers and engineers. So I guessed that you were referring to the people who do those things, not that "facts" got up and ran away from "discovery." My mistake. You WERE waxing lyrical. g I spent my time in the Army keeping payroll data secret, not because anyone cares what a Lieutenant makes, but because the location where he receives it reveals troop deployments. Even the length of the encrypted stream is valuable to a spy because it reveals changes in the number of troops unless it's padded. Similar indirect analysis is valuable in commercial espionage. The CIA has large departments dedicated to collecting and analyzing open-source economic data to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of potential enemies. We had and used it to plan WW2 bombing raids on Japan because we had helped them build the factories we destroyed, and kept copies of the plans. Naturally we don't make it easy for others to reciprocate similarly against us. The government -shouldn't- release economic data in such detail that it will help the Chinese take over. Your difficulty was an unintended collateral consequence. Well, the Dept. of Commerce is explicit about why they do that. They've been ordered by Congress not to divulge information that would give one company an advantage over another. In this case, my client was an American company, trying to find out what a couple of Japanese companies were doing. That was 30 years ago. Ed Huntress The Titanium for Vietnam fighter jets came from the USSR, through a tortuous network that concealed its final destination. The Market Basket article I referenced told how they used intermediaries to buy up land to avoid revealing their intent and driving up the price. Those are examples of old tricks to deceive market, CIA, KGB, NSA et.al. analysts looking for patterns. As long as those trying to hide have incentive and means to pay better than those trying to find, they will attract the better brains. -jsw |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: My mistake. You WERE waxing lyrical. g That was a pristine stream-of-consciousness first draft. Normally I edit substantially after capturing the important ideas. |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 09:09:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote: snip Well, the study of economics is changing. I think you'll see a new generation, that was taught in a different way, starting to make their voices heard in the near future -- less theory, and more evidence-based research. /snip Those who are following this fork may enjoy [shame the good articles now seem to be in the overseas press] http://tinyurl.com/lhhw5xu -- Unka' George "Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants, but debt is the money of slaves" -Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium" |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:24:07 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: My mistake. You WERE waxing lyrical. g That was a pristine stream-of-consciousness first draft. Normally I edit substantially after capturing the important ideas. Well, I don't. That's too much like work. So feel free to misconstrue my grammatical errors. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ... On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 09:09:11 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: snip Well, the study of economics is changing. I think you'll see a new generation, that was taught in a different way, starting to make their voices heard in the near future -- less theory, and more evidence-based research. /snip Those who are following this fork may enjoy [shame the good articles now seem to be in the overseas press] http://tinyurl.com/lhhw5xu -- Unka' George Thanks, good article. We have been there befo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873 "The Panic of 1873 and the subsequent depression had several underlying causes, of which economic historians debate the relative importance." I.e., they still don't understand. The hazard of government involvement in business: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A...merica_scandal jsw |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:29:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: snip The hazard of government involvement in business: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A...merica_scandal /snip While correct, this is only one half the story. What is the hazard of the government non involvement in business, particularly when this can occur early enough to avoid problems requiring taxpayer funded bailouts? You may find this informative Like the GM ad said "its not your father's Oldsmobile," and it's not your father's economy. Some things really are different this time. http://tinyurl.com/lycxejn We can never know, but huge sums of money may have been saved and years of lost economic progress avoided if there had a procedure in place to monitor the Lehmans, AIGs, GMCs, and intervene with some sort of conservatorship while there was still time for corrective action. IMNSHO we desperately need a "careless and reckless operation of a business enterprise" analog to the "careless and reckless operation of a motor vehicle" statute, with license/charter suspension and revocation. If it works for the NFL, it would appear that a few 90 day suspensions of Fuld, Greenberg, Corzine, Cayne, etc. from the team [with salary/perk-bennie forfeiture] for unsportsmanlike conduct, delay of game or unnecessary roughness, would have done wonders in improving their concentration and focus. -- Unka' George "Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants, but debt is the money of slaves" -Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium" |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 10:41:23 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote: On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 09:09:11 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: snip Complexity is a reason that pure theorizing is going to decline in importance. The theories get tangled up as more of them become involved in the equations. It's like differential equations in engineering, and real-world engineering has gravitated toward numerical analysis, such as FEA. Economics is going the same way. /snip Indeed, and this may well be a reason to adopt a far more pragmatic approach such as EvOp and Action Research methodology http://tinyurl.com/nffwfkz http://tinyurl.com/2rarbb rather than trying to predict the future, which Mandlebrot has demonstrated may well be impossible in other than the most general terms, one the order of "if its wintertime the temperature will be below average." http://tinyurl.com/pz5rmxp One of the major problems is the failure of the policy makers to formulate their goals and objectives in quantifiable, measurable and objective terms, and then to collect data to evaluate the effects of their policy on the areas of interest. [if the data is not available or can't be collected, its not quantifiable, measurable or objective]. It appears the unintended consequences and "side effects" of a policy frequently have more impact on the socioeconomy than to the objectives. They usually do better than doing nothing. Behavioral economics and non-rational economic decisions should have driven a stake through the heart of Fama's "efficient marketplace hypothesis" but so far it hasn't. Behavioral economics is in its infancy. While labor/time intensive, Stephenson's Q methodology http://tinyurl.com/nvdxfo would seem to offer far better insight into the market, e. g. The Alibaba IPO http://tinyurl.com/myf2vor. One of the major problems is getting agreement on exactly what the [non contradictory] objective are. Is it good or bad when the median wage increases? Is it good or bad when corporations pay less in taxes? Is it good or bad when unemployment or high? Like Schrodinger's cat, they're both. Much depends on which perspective or valiance you are responding from, i.e. individual (employee or CEO), business, industrial sector, aggrigiate/national, sovereign supranational corporation, etc. Those are all questions that economomists are asked to answer. But the policy goals are not economics. They're politics. -- Ed Huntress |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ... On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:29:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: IMNSHO we desperately need a "careless and reckless operation of a business enterprise" analog to the "careless and reckless operation of a motor vehicle" statute, with license/charter suspension and revocation. .... Sure, if we can apply the same standards and remedies to governments and their institutions. |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 09:39:51 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: FEA works because the interactions between elements can be quantitatively characterized. The soft sciences have always lagged behind the hard ones because they can't fully understand the motives of and interactions between people. As Niven and Pournelle(?) wrote, the difference between lawyers and engineers is that the truths a lawyer seeks actively avoid discovery, and so it is with market research. -jsw -jsw Having done a fair amount of market research, I don't think that's an accurate contrast. Market researchers don't *avoid* discovery; they just don't have the legal means to do it. But they certainly don't avoid it. They dig up every bit of competitive data that they can. I used to spend hours pouring over import data for clients, trying to tease the specific, by-company competitor data out of the government reports, which made an effort to disguise the by-company data. Sometimes they succeeded at hiding it, and sometimes I succeeded in digging it out. -- Ed Huntress Have another coffee and reread what I posted. It's the facts themselves that avoid discovery, not the researchers, in a situation where revealing them would aid your business competitors. I spent my time in the Army keeping payroll data secret, not because anyone cares what a Lieutenant makes, but because the location where he receives it reveals troop deployments. Even the length of the encrypted stream is valuable to a spy because it reveals changes in the number of troops unless it's padded. Similar indirect analysis is valuable in commercial espionage. The CIA has large departments dedicated to collecting and analyzing open-source economic data to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of potential enemies. We had and used it to plan WW2 bombing raids on Japan because we had helped them build the factories we destroyed, and kept copies of the plans. Naturally we don't make it easy for others to reciprocate similarly against us. The government -shouldn't- release economic data in such detail that it will help the Chinese take over. Your difficulty was an unintended collateral consequence. The Titanium for Vietnam fighter jets came from the USSR, through a tortuous network that concealed its final destination. The Market Basket article I referenced told how they used intermediaries to buy up land to avoid revealing their intent and driving up the price. Those are examples of old tricks to deceive market, CIA, KGB, NSA et.al. analysts looking for patterns. Out of curiosity, what Vietnam fighter jets was titanium used on? I ask as I spent several years servicing the various fighter jets that were used in Vietnam and I don't remember any that used titanium. The first airplane that I saw in USAF use that used any quantity of titanium was the SR-71, hardly a Vietnam fighter jet. -- Cheers, John B. |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
... On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: The Titanium for Vietnam fighter jets came from the USSR, through a tortuous network that concealed its final destination. The Market Basket article I referenced told how they used intermediaries to buy up land to avoid revealing their intent and driving up the price. Those are examples of old tricks to deceive market, CIA, KGB, NSA et.al. analysts looking for patterns. Out of curiosity, what Vietnam fighter jets was titanium used on? I ask as I spent several years servicing the various fighter jets that were used in Vietnam and I don't remember any that used titanium. The first airplane that I saw in USAF use that used any quantity of titanium was the SR-71, hardly a Vietnam fighter jet. -- Cheers, John B. http://www.tomcattersassociation.org...h-titanium.htm I can't tell titanium from stainless unless I can pick it up and feel the weight. -jsw |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:28:11 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:29:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: IMNSHO we desperately need a "careless and reckless operation of a business enterprise" analog to the "careless and reckless operation of a motor vehicle" statute, with license/charter suspension and revocation. .... Sure, if we can apply the same standards and remedies to governments and their institutions. Talk about a nationwide multi-car-pileup... -- One word frees us of all the weight and pain of life: That word is love. -- Sophocles |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:57:03 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "John B. Slocomb" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: The Titanium for Vietnam fighter jets came from the USSR, through a tortuous network that concealed its final destination. The Market Basket article I referenced told how they used intermediaries to buy up land to avoid revealing their intent and driving up the price. Those are examples of old tricks to deceive market, CIA, KGB, NSA et.al. analysts looking for patterns. Out of curiosity, what Vietnam fighter jets was titanium used on? I ask as I spent several years servicing the various fighter jets that were used in Vietnam and I don't remember any that used titanium. The first airplane that I saw in USAF use that used any quantity of titanium was the SR-71, hardly a Vietnam fighter jet. -- Cheers, John B. http://www.tomcattersassociation.org...h-titanium.htm I can't tell titanium from stainless unless I can pick it up and feel the weight. -jsw Interesting. And I did work on F-4's and one of the problem areas was the stabulators. Although not the skin but the pivot. The major difference in using titanium is that it is complicated to weld and it work hardens very rapidly. In the early 1970's the USAF certification test for titanium was still welded in an inert atmosphere box. I had an extra day at my last certification test and the Instructor asked if I wanted to try titanium and the biggest problem was trying to work inside the box using the attached gloves. The sheet metal guys used to curse the stuff as drilling rivet holes was a bit of a struggle as the stuff was forever turning diamond hard if you let the drill slip the tiniest bit. We worked on the SR's a little when they were first transferred to Beal and they didn't yet have their full compliment of workers and no one was sorry when they got fully manned and we could go back to our "regular" airplanes :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:19:55 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote: On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:57:03 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "John B. Slocomb" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: The Titanium for Vietnam fighter jets came from the USSR, through a tortuous network that concealed its final destination. The Market Basket article I referenced told how they used intermediaries to buy up land to avoid revealing their intent and driving up the price. Those are examples of old tricks to deceive market, CIA, KGB, NSA et.al. analysts looking for patterns. Out of curiosity, what Vietnam fighter jets was titanium used on? I ask as I spent several years servicing the various fighter jets that were used in Vietnam and I don't remember any that used titanium. The first airplane that I saw in USAF use that used any quantity of titanium was the SR-71, hardly a Vietnam fighter jet. -- Cheers, John B. http://www.tomcattersassociation.org...h-titanium.htm I can't tell titanium from stainless unless I can pick it up and feel the weight. -jsw Interesting. And I did work on F-4's and one of the problem areas was the stabulators. Although not the skin but the pivot. The major difference in using titanium is that it is complicated to weld and it work hardens very rapidly. In the early 1970's the USAF certification test for titanium was still welded in an inert atmosphere box. I had an extra day at my last certification test and the Instructor asked if I wanted to try titanium and the biggest problem was trying to work inside the box using the attached gloves. The sheet metal guys used to curse the stuff as drilling rivet holes was a bit of a struggle as the stuff was forever turning diamond hard if you let the drill slip the tiniest bit. We worked on the SR's a little when they were first transferred to Beal and they didn't yet have their full compliment of workers and no one was sorry when they got fully manned and we could go back to our "regular" airplanes :-) In addition to the SR-71, the F-111 had titanium skin. I was told that the original method for welding it was electron-beam, performed in a vacuum. I think the atmosphere came later. You can't use aluminum above Mach 2, roughly. The limit is around 300 deg. F, which was the result of skin friction at high speeds. It loses too much strength above that temperature. That's what limited the Concorde's speed, too; it was aluminum, for cost. Above that you need titanium or steel. The Russions, despite their considerable expertise in metallurgy and a good supply of titanium, couldn't weld it. So the Mig 25 (Foxbat) was skinned and framed in steel. -- Ed Huntress |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:21:30 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:19:55 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:57:03 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "John B. Slocomb" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: The Titanium for Vietnam fighter jets came from the USSR, through a tortuous network that concealed its final destination. The Market Basket article I referenced told how they used intermediaries to buy up land to avoid revealing their intent and driving up the price. Those are examples of old tricks to deceive market, CIA, KGB, NSA et.al. analysts looking for patterns. Out of curiosity, what Vietnam fighter jets was titanium used on? I ask as I spent several years servicing the various fighter jets that were used in Vietnam and I don't remember any that used titanium. The first airplane that I saw in USAF use that used any quantity of titanium was the SR-71, hardly a Vietnam fighter jet. -- Cheers, John B. http://www.tomcattersassociation.org...h-titanium.htm I can't tell titanium from stainless unless I can pick it up and feel the weight. -jsw Interesting. And I did work on F-4's and one of the problem areas was the stabulators. Although not the skin but the pivot. The major difference in using titanium is that it is complicated to weld and it work hardens very rapidly. In the early 1970's the USAF certification test for titanium was still welded in an inert atmosphere box. I had an extra day at my last certification test and the Instructor asked if I wanted to try titanium and the biggest problem was trying to work inside the box using the attached gloves. The sheet metal guys used to curse the stuff as drilling rivet holes was a bit of a struggle as the stuff was forever turning diamond hard if you let the drill slip the tiniest bit. We worked on the SR's a little when they were first transferred to Beal and they didn't yet have their full compliment of workers and no one was sorry when they got fully manned and we could go back to our "regular" airplanes :-) In addition to the SR-71, the F-111 had titanium skin. I was told that the original method for welding it was electron-beam, performed in a vacuum. I think the atmosphere came later. I don't know about the "F-111" but I was part of the test detachment for the FB-111 and I don't remember that any of the skin where there was access panels being aluminum. Certainly the panels behind the cockpit module were aluminum and the fuselage skin around the exhaust outlets was aluminum -- the reason I know was that the screws in the panels behind the cockpit had left hand threads and the Airframe guys used to try to take them out with an air screwdriver and stripped the plate nuts off, and the aft fuselage fairing because a pin that held it on jammed and we had to cut a hole in the skin to beat it out. The "splitter plates" that separate air flow between the fuselage and the engine inlets was aluminum and the aft wing spar was aluminum as we had to come up with repairs for both those items. You can't use aluminum above Mach 2, roughly. The limit is around 300 deg. F, which was the result of skin friction at high speeds. It loses too much strength above that temperature. That's what limited the Concorde's speed, too; it was aluminum, for cost. Above that you need titanium or steel. The Russions, despite their considerable expertise in metallurgy and a good supply of titanium, couldn't weld it. So the Mig 25 (Foxbat) was skinned and framed in steel. While I was at Edwards with the FB-111 I worked in the "Base Shops" for a while and some guys came in with a nose gear, obviously from a small airplane. It had no data plates or other obvious markings on it and the question was how to get it apart. I got called in because I was Air Force and the rest of the shop was civilians, so I got to look it over pretty closely. It was a complete nose gear strut with the trunions on the top and the axle on the bottom. Obviously an Oleo strut, there was a high pressure air valve in the top. But no way to disassemble it. It appeared that it was somehow assembled and then welded together and no way to take it apart. I asked the guys "what kind of airplane did this come off?" and got no answer. Based on the timing I suspect that it was the nose gear from the MIG that was flown to Taiwan and then sort of disappeared. I never worked on small airplanes and I don't know how much nose gear problem they have (the big ones don't have much) and the strange nose gear was pretty light. Maybe a steel tubing, welded together, change the whole thing, nose gear makes sense. A lot of the things the Russians did that were condemned as "crude" actually made very good sense. -- Cheers, John B. |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:45:05 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote: On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:21:30 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:19:55 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:57:03 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "John B. Slocomb" wrote in message m... On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: The Titanium for Vietnam fighter jets came from the USSR, through a tortuous network that concealed its final destination. The Market Basket article I referenced told how they used intermediaries to buy up land to avoid revealing their intent and driving up the price. Those are examples of old tricks to deceive market, CIA, KGB, NSA et.al. analysts looking for patterns. Out of curiosity, what Vietnam fighter jets was titanium used on? I ask as I spent several years servicing the various fighter jets that were used in Vietnam and I don't remember any that used titanium. The first airplane that I saw in USAF use that used any quantity of titanium was the SR-71, hardly a Vietnam fighter jet. -- Cheers, John B. http://www.tomcattersassociation.org...h-titanium.htm I can't tell titanium from stainless unless I can pick it up and feel the weight. -jsw Interesting. And I did work on F-4's and one of the problem areas was the stabulators. Although not the skin but the pivot. The major difference in using titanium is that it is complicated to weld and it work hardens very rapidly. In the early 1970's the USAF certification test for titanium was still welded in an inert atmosphere box. I had an extra day at my last certification test and the Instructor asked if I wanted to try titanium and the biggest problem was trying to work inside the box using the attached gloves. The sheet metal guys used to curse the stuff as drilling rivet holes was a bit of a struggle as the stuff was forever turning diamond hard if you let the drill slip the tiniest bit. We worked on the SR's a little when they were first transferred to Beal and they didn't yet have their full compliment of workers and no one was sorry when they got fully manned and we could go back to our "regular" airplanes :-) In addition to the SR-71, the F-111 had titanium skin. I was told that the original method for welding it was electron-beam, performed in a vacuum. I think the atmosphere came later. I don't know about the "F-111" but I was part of the test detachment for the FB-111 and I don't remember that any of the skin where there was access panels being aluminum. Certainly the panels behind the cockpit module were aluminum and the fuselage skin around the exhaust outlets was aluminum -- the reason I know was that the screws in the panels behind the cockpit had left hand threads and the Airframe guys used to try to take them out with an air screwdriver and stripped the plate nuts off, and the aft fuselage fairing because a pin that held it on jammed and we had to cut a hole in the skin to beat it out. The "splitter plates" that separate air flow between the fuselage and the engine inlets was aluminum and the aft wing spar was aluminum as we had to come up with repairs for both those items. The F-111 and its variants, including the FB-111, used titanium where they had to, where skin friction at high speeds generated too much heat for aluminum, and then they used aluminum where they could get away with it. Those aircraft also employed steel in parts of the airframe. You can't use aluminum above Mach 2, roughly. The limit is around 300 deg. F, which was the result of skin friction at high speeds. It loses too much strength above that temperature. That's what limited the Concorde's speed, too; it was aluminum, for cost. Above that you need titanium or steel. The Russions, despite their considerable expertise in metallurgy and a good supply of titanium, couldn't weld it. So the Mig 25 (Foxbat) was skinned and framed in steel. While I was at Edwards with the FB-111 I worked in the "Base Shops" for a while and some guys came in with a nose gear, obviously from a small airplane. It had no data plates or other obvious markings on it and the question was how to get it apart. I got called in because I was Air Force and the rest of the shop was civilians, so I got to look it over pretty closely. It was a complete nose gear strut with the trunions on the top and the axle on the bottom. Obviously an Oleo strut, there was a high pressure air valve in the top. But no way to disassemble it. It appeared that it was somehow assembled and then welded together and no way to take it apart. I asked the guys "what kind of airplane did this come off?" and got no answer. Based on the timing I suspect that it was the nose gear from the MIG that was flown to Taiwan and then sort of disappeared. I never worked on small airplanes and I don't know how much nose gear problem they have (the big ones don't have much) and the strange nose gear was pretty light. Maybe a steel tubing, welded together, change the whole thing, nose gear makes sense. A lot of the things the Russians did that were condemned as "crude" actually made very good sense. They made a lot of things for reliability and easy maintenance, and their military equipment was often selected by third-world countries for that very reason. They also made a lot of junk for non-military applications. The Soviets had especially good metallurgists. -- Ed Huntress |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
... I never worked on small airplanes and I don't know how much nose gear problem they have (the big ones don't have much) and the strange nose gear was pretty light. Maybe a steel tubing, welded together, change the whole thing, nose gear makes sense. A lot of the things the Russians did that were condemned as "crude" actually made very good sense. -- Cheers, John B. I've watched a Russian engineer bend the framework of a military optical device to align the lenses, where we would have made the frame heavier and added screws. I've read that the TBO for their fighters was 200 hours, then they tear it down and replace what's worn or damaged, like the hot section and accessories. In WW2 the average life of ours =in combat= was supposedly about 50 hours, though they held up far longer in training or on patrols. http://www.wwiifoundation.org/missio...ircraft-facts/ "In 1942-43 it was statistically impossible for bomber crews to complete a 25-mission tour in Europe." -jsw |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:34:58 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:45:05 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:21:30 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:19:55 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:57:03 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: "John B. Slocomb" wrote in message om... On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:09:18 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote: much snipped The F-111 and its variants, including the FB-111, used titanium where they had to, where skin friction at high speeds generated too much heat for aluminum, and then they used aluminum where they could get away with it. Those aircraft also employed steel in parts of the airframe. You can't use aluminum above Mach 2, roughly. The limit is around 300 deg. F, which was the result of skin friction at high speeds. It loses too much strength above that temperature. That's what limited the Concorde's speed, too; it was aluminum, for cost. Above that you need titanium or steel. The Russions, despite their considerable expertise in metallurgy and a good supply of titanium, couldn't weld it. So the Mig 25 (Foxbat) was skinned and framed in steel. While I was at Edwards with the FB-111 I worked in the "Base Shops" for a while and some guys came in with a nose gear, obviously from a small airplane. It had no data plates or other obvious markings on it and the question was how to get it apart. I got called in because I was Air Force and the rest of the shop was civilians, so I got to look it over pretty closely. It was a complete nose gear strut with the trunions on the top and the axle on the bottom. Obviously an Oleo strut, there was a high pressure air valve in the top. But no way to disassemble it. It appeared that it was somehow assembled and then welded together and no way to take it apart. I asked the guys "what kind of airplane did this come off?" and got no answer. Based on the timing I suspect that it was the nose gear from the MIG that was flown to Taiwan and then sort of disappeared. I never worked on small airplanes and I don't know how much nose gear problem they have (the big ones don't have much) and the strange nose gear was pretty light. Maybe a steel tubing, welded together, change the whole thing, nose gear makes sense. A lot of the things the Russians did that were condemned as "crude" actually made very good sense. They made a lot of things for reliability and easy maintenance, and their military equipment was often selected by third-world countries for that very reason. They also made a lot of junk for non-military applications. The Soviets had especially good metallurgists. I worked at a steel plant in E. Java that was started by the Russians, who left abruptly when the local communists attempted a coup, leaving all the heavy equipment behind. It was noticeable that most of the equipment was not made of "exotic" alloys (crane booms looking like U.S. 50 ton and rated for 30 tons) and every engine had at least two starting methods, some had three. We reckoned that it might get cold in Russia :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Liberals score higher on IQ tests, Multiple choice fill in the bubble IQ tests. Some can even read their diploma....
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:09:51 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote: "John B. Slocomb" wrote in message .. . I never worked on small airplanes and I don't know how much nose gear problem they have (the big ones don't have much) and the strange nose gear was pretty light. Maybe a steel tubing, welded together, change the whole thing, nose gear makes sense. A lot of the things the Russians did that were condemned as "crude" actually made very good sense. -- Cheers, John B. I've watched a Russian engineer bend the framework of a military optical device to align the lenses, where we would have made the frame heavier and added screws. I've read that the TBO for their fighters was 200 hours, then they tear it down and replace what's worn or damaged, like the hot section and accessories. Hot section repairs are a fairly frequent and common repair on most jets. The KC-135's had a heat deflector ring inside the tail pipe that would have cracked mounting screw holes on every teardown. The navy had some fighters that would run on either avgas or JP and they used to crawl up the tail pipe to inspect the turbine wheel. As the engines might have been burning avgas the protection gear worn during the inspection was quite exotic :-) In WW2 the average life of ours =in combat= was supposedly about 50 hours, though they held up far longer in training or on patrols. http://www.wwiifoundation.org/missio...ircraft-facts/ "In 1942-43 it was statistically impossible for bomber crews to complete a 25-mission tour in Europe." -jsw The original WW II rotation plan (War Department Directive of 1 July 1942) was a one year combat tour. http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media...080424-048.pdf -- Cheers, John B. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT DNA tests | UK diy | |||
PAT tests | UK diy | |||
pregnancy tests | UK diy |