"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On May 20, 8:13 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
Yes! From decades of self-teaching, I can suggest my own solution: two or
three books, written by different authors, that explain the same thing in
different ways. ...

Ed Huntress

I've found that I need an intuitive explanation first to provide a
framework to file away the subsequent formulaic ones, which killed me
when I got to Laplace Transforms.

Aha. Yes, I have some of that affliction too. I grow impatient with purely
abstract explanations until I have a picture in my head.


Unfortunately some good mathematicians have a limited ability to think
visually. My first physics teacher couldn't look at a sign support on
the front of a building and tell whether the diagonal brace was in
tension or compression. He had to solve the algebra and see the sign
of the result. A girlfriend's father who taught physics had quit
chemistry because he couldn't imagine the 3 dimensional molecular
structures.

She was a lovely, classy lady who didn't help me concentrate on math
and molecules either.

jsw

You're drifting, Jim. g That's another affliction we share.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

(...)

Yes! From decades of self-teaching, I can suggest my own solution: two or
three books, written by different authors, that explain the same thing in
different ways. I open them all at the same time and switch back and forth.
This was particularly useful to me in learning semiconductor theory many
years ago, but it works for all kinds of subjects. It also helped me a great
deal with the metallurgy of steel, which often is oversimplified until you
can't understand what the mechanisms are.

The Web often is even better at providing multiple sources, but, as we all
know, it can lead you down a primrose path, too.

We all appear to learn differently.

I've set up my newsgroup reader to mark the posts from select
participants like you, Ed and Pete C and Jim Wilkins, etc because
I find that I can generally understand your point effortlessly.
It almost doesn't matter what the subject is.

I find a startling qualitative difference between 'textbook'
presentation (which can be obscure *and* tiresome) and this
informal communication which I find clear and compelling.

It's frustrating because I can't reconcile the tacit goal of
the textbook with that of the newsgroup. They should both
communicate effectively but in a lot of cases I get a sense
that the textbook author is almost gleeful in his precise,
correct and totally useless presentation.

That is fascinating stuff.

--Winston

On May 20, 9:18*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
..
I've found that I need an intuitive explanation first to provide a
framework to file away the subsequent formulaic ones, which killed me
when I got to Laplace Transforms.
...
A girlfriend's father who taught physics had quit
chemistry because he couldn't imagine the 3 dimensional molecular
structures.

She was a lovely, classy lady who didn't help me concentrate on math
and molecules either.

jsw

You're drifting, Jim. g That's another affliction we share.
Ed Huntress

Leading, not drifting. I had to commit to a major when I applied for
college, before I really knew which science to choose. I might have
switched from chemistry to mechanical or electrical engineering if I
had done better in calculus. The Army put me in electronics where I
stayed. However the chemistry curriculum was very broad and a good
preparation for most anything. For instance I learned how to fudge a
political survey by biasing the selection criteria, like calling
during the day when only unemployed people are home.

In the 1990's at MITRE I took night classes toward an EE degree and
maintained a 4.0, including calculus. The night school teachers were
practical people with day jobs who treated math as a tool, not an
abstract art form.

jsw

"Winston" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

(...)

Yes! From decades of self-teaching, I can suggest my own solution: two or
three books, written by different authors, that explain the same thing in
different ways. I open them all at the same time and switch back and
forth.
This was particularly useful to me in learning semiconductor theory many
years ago, but it works for all kinds of subjects. It also helped me a
great
deal with the metallurgy of steel, which often is oversimplified until
you
can't understand what the mechanisms are.

The Web often is even better at providing multiple sources, but, as we
all
know, it can lead you down a primrose path, too.

We all appear to learn differently.

I've set up my newsgroup reader to mark the posts from select
participants like you, Ed and Pete C and Jim Wilkins, etc because
I find that I can generally understand your point effortlessly.
It almost doesn't matter what the subject is.

I find a startling qualitative difference between 'textbook'
presentation (which can be obscure *and* tiresome) and this
informal communication which I find clear and compelling.

It's frustrating because I can't reconcile the tacit goal of
the textbook with that of the newsgroup. They should both
communicate effectively but in a lot of cases I get a sense
that the textbook author is almost gleeful in his precise,
correct and totally useless presentation.

That is fascinating stuff.

--Winston

Yes, it's an interesting subject when you get into it. I edited all of my
wife's term papers when she was working on her master's degree in special
education, and that's a big topic in her line of work. It's hard for many of
us to identify with other modes of learning, but being exposed to a lot of
case histories (and her students) has given me a few surprises.

As for the writing of textbooks, I think it's the result of having
textbooks, particularly specialized ones, written by experts in their fields
who just don't have much writing experience. They tend to be pedantic,
rigorous, and jargon-filled, because they worry about sounding
"professional." Editing scientific papers written by medical doctors, my
eyes often roll back in their sockets.

Writing is like any other skill: practice, practice, practice...

--
Ed Huntress

On May 20, 11:30*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Winston" wrote in message
...
I've set up my newsgroup reader to mark the posts from select
participants like you, Ed and Pete C and Jim Wilkins, etc because
I find that I can generally understand your point effortlessly.
It almost doesn't matter what the subject is.

I spend so long editing the initial garbage that I spew for style and
clarity and logical sequence that the session often times out and I
have to copy and paste the text into a new one. That's why my posts
may contain complete non-sequiturs where I missed a major change at
line wrap, which isn't where you see it.

I find a startling qualitative difference between 'textbook'
presentation (which can be obscure *and* tiresome) and this
informal communication which I find clear and compelling.

It's frustrating because I can't reconcile the tacit goal of
the textbook with that of the newsgroup. They should both
communicate effectively but in a lot of cases I get a sense
that the textbook author is almost gleeful in his precise,
correct and totally useless presentation.

I began posting here for informal practice when I was having enormous
difficulty writing technical reports and manuals. The group may
complain but they don't write my review.

That pedantic, rigorous, and jargon-filled style is a valuable insider
shorthand for concepts not easily expressed in standard civilian
English. I just had an argument about Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in
another group and found myself writing that way.

MITRE offered a class on how to write technical Governmentese, which
is similar to Legalese in that some words have specific restricted
meanings. The instructor explained that the writing style of an
organization mirrors its balance between freedom of initiative and
personal responsibility, and the consequences of mistakes. He used a
bank as one extreme and an artists' collective as the other. An
investment prospectus and an art review are the same thing written
under different rules in radically different styles.

jsw

Ed Huntress wrote:

(...)

It's hard for many of us to identify with other modes of learning,
but being exposed to a lot of case histories (and her students)
has given me a few surprises.

I'll bet! Where is Art Linkletter when we need him?

As for the writing of textbooks, I think it's the result of having
textbooks, particularly specialized ones, written by experts in their fields
who just don't have much writing experience. They tend to be pedantic,
rigorous, and jargon-filled, because they worry about sounding
"professional." Editing scientific papers written by medical doctors, my
eyes often roll back in their sockets.

Yup. Though in my my experience, mail carriers are about the only
group that have chosen not to 'bombard me with obfuscation'.

I'm sure they could if they wanted to.

Writing is like any other skill: practice, practice, practice...

Yup.

--Winston

Jim Wilkins wrote:
On May 20, 11:30 am, "Ed wrote:
wrote in message
...
I've set up my newsgroup reader to mark the posts from select
participants like you, Ed and Pete C and Jim Wilkins, etc because
I find that I can generally understand your point effortlessly.
It almost doesn't matter what the subject is.

I spend so long editing the initial garbage that I spew

(...)

You've participated in RCM long enough to know what
'garbage' is, Jim. Your posts are exactly the opposite, IMNSHO.

An investment prospectus and an art review are the same thing
written under different rules in radically different styles.

Yes. One is a fantastical work of hyperbole that concludes with
a mean surprise at the end. The other one is an art review.

When we discuss SWMBO's day, she sometimes falls into 'Organizational
Lingo' and I ask her to back up and explain some of the acronyms.

I'm guilty too. I got a look of utter surprise from a nice lady last
week when I mentioned that I was having difficulty with my 'POP client'.
Shame on me.


--Winston

Winston wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

(...)

? It's hard for many of us to identify with other modes of learning,
? but being exposed to a lot of case histories (and her students)
? has given me a few surprises.

I'll bet! Where is Art Linkletter when we need him?


Dead. He died last May 26 of last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Linkletter


--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Winston wrote:

(...)

I'll bet! Where is Art Linkletter when we need him?


Dead. He died last May 26 of last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Linkletter

Now *there* is a life well spent.

--Winston

" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Winston wrote:

(...)

I'll bet! Where is Art Linkletter when we need him?


Dead. He died last May 26 of last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Linkletter

Now *there* is a life well spent.


A real entertainer, who didn't have to 'work blue'.


--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

Gunner Asch on Wed, 18 May 2011 01:54:09 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 20:37:15 -0500, Ignoramus31865
wrote:

On 2011-05-18, Pete C. wrote:

Ignoramus31865 wrote:

I have a GM 3/4 ton pickup.

I won, in an auction, a "Ramco RM5000" crane. This crane is similar to
the Harbor Freight truck crane, but is a lot beefier.

It is pictured he

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Ramco-RM5000-Truck-Crane.jpg

(not mine, but an identical model).

This is rated for 5k pounds, I am sure for the boom fully retracted.

It has a 8,000 lbs jack. I will put in a longer boom too, and a
winch. I am aware that extending the boom will decrease capacity
proportionally, so a boom that is 4 foot would decrease capacity of
the crane to, say, 1,500 lbs or whatever. I have to call the mfr to
find out. This is stillw ay better than my HF crane.

I have a very large 3/4 inch steel plate, I would say 3x4 feet, that
is rusting in my backyard.

What I thought of doing, is making a cutout on the plate to fit around
a wheel well, and mount it in the back of the truck's bed, and put the
crane on top of it. The Ramco crane would sit in the rear right corner
of the bed, just like this Harbor Freight crane does now:

http://goo.gl/KAN0Y

It has to be a large plate, to spread the weight of the crane and the
levering action that its base would apply to the bed. This particular
plate weighs around 300 lbs and is large enough.

My question is, what sort of constraints do I still have. I would hate
to overturn my truck, break suspension, etc. I would also think that
for heavy lifting, I would need to jack up the right rear wheel too.

Any practical opinions?

i

A crane with that weight capacity really needs to be mounted to the
frame, not to pickup bed sheetmetal. I think typically it would be
mounted with a beefy bracket under the bed to the frame. A support leg
(trailer jack) for the corner of the truck with the crane is common for
the heavier cranes so you don't apply a concentrated load to the
suspension on one side of the truck and also to stabilize it so it stays
level during the lift instead of tilting to that side.

What I was going to do is put a steel plate, 3x4 feet or so, on the
bed and bolt it to the bed. Would that not be enough support for the
crane? I already have this plate and it is huge.

i

That plate HAS to be bolted to the frame. Period

Amazing how flexible truck beds can be. Especially to the torque
of an asymmetrical load.

No matter how thick it is.

Oh I don't know, a bed whcih is six inches thick _might_ hold.

Then again, the whole bed might also just come loose from the
frame, from the torque.

Gunner
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Is there mounting plate locations on the Frame underneath ?
Attach low and have a hole in the bed going down to the plate.

These almost no frame cars and some trucks might be a nightmare.

Full size trucks have rails for the frame.

Just an idea. Naturally if you have to have the payload area for a load
you are then talking about outriders that you plant into the ground
(plate under them) to stabilize side loads.

Martin

On 5/21/2011 7:40 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner on Wed, 18 May 2011 01:54:09 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 20:37:15 -0500, Ignoramus31865
wrote:

On 2011-05-18, Pete wrote:

Ignoramus31865 wrote:

I have a GM 3/4 ton pickup.

I won, in an auction, a "Ramco RM5000" crane. This crane is similar to
the Harbor Freight truck crane, but is a lot beefier.

It is pictured he

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Ramco-RM5000-Truck-Crane.jpg

(not mine, but an identical model).

This is rated for 5k pounds, I am sure for the boom fully retracted.

It has a 8,000 lbs jack. I will put in a longer boom too, and a
winch. I am aware that extending the boom will decrease capacity
proportionally, so a boom that is 4 foot would decrease capacity of
the crane to, say, 1,500 lbs or whatever. I have to call the mfr to
find out. This is stillw ay better than my HF crane.

I have a very large 3/4 inch steel plate, I would say 3x4 feet, that
is rusting in my backyard.

What I thought of doing, is making a cutout on the plate to fit around
a wheel well, and mount it in the back of the truck's bed, and put the
crane on top of it. The Ramco crane would sit in the rear right corner
of the bed, just like this Harbor Freight crane does now:

http://goo.gl/KAN0Y

It has to be a large plate, to spread the weight of the crane and the
levering action that its base would apply to the bed. This particular
plate weighs around 300 lbs and is large enough.

My question is, what sort of constraints do I still have. I would hate
to overturn my truck, break suspension, etc. I would also think that
for heavy lifting, I would need to jack up the right rear wheel too.

Any practical opinions?

i

A crane with that weight capacity really needs to be mounted to the
frame, not to pickup bed sheetmetal. I think typically it would be
mounted with a beefy bracket under the bed to the frame. A support leg
(trailer jack) for the corner of the truck with the crane is common for
the heavier cranes so you don't apply a concentrated load to the
suspension on one side of the truck and also to stabilize it so it stays
level during the lift instead of tilting to that side.

What I was going to do is put a steel plate, 3x4 feet or so, on the
bed and bolt it to the bed. Would that not be enough support for the
crane? I already have this plate and it is huge.

i

That plate HAS to be bolted to the frame. Period

Amazing how flexible truck beds can be. Especially to the torque
of an asymmetrical load.

No matter how thick it is.

Oh I don't know, a bed whcih is six inches thick _might_ hold.

Then again, the whole bed might also just come loose from the
frame, from the torque.

Gunner

I had a 1 ton Chev dually I took a 1/4 inch thick wall pipe and welded it to the side of the frame right behind the spring hanger bracket and weld to it to cut a hole in the bed so the pipe was flush with the bottom of the bed so there was nothing sticking up when the hoist was remove. I use it for years picking up various things I think the heaviest thing I lifted was a 8x8 foot steel disk and loaded it on a trailer I had made a 6 foot boom for mine with capped ends.

replying to Ignoramus31865, Wing wrote:
Y not ubolt the lift frame to the truck frame. U might want to box the truck
frame where the bolts are. I would make sure to fill the void Btwn the top of
the frame and bottom of box at the mounting points Consider two support
jacks in the rear one on the front right in case u are doing side lift

--
for full context, visit https://www.polytechforum.com/metalw...up-504259-.htm

On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:18:06 PM UTC-5, Wing wrote:
replying to Ignoramus31865, Wing wrote:
Y not ubolt the lift frame to the truck frame. U might want to box the truck
frame where the bolts are. I would make sure to fill the void Btwn the top of
the frame and bottom of box at the mounting points Consider two support
jacks in the rear one on the front right in case u are doing side lift

--
for full context, visit https://www.polytechforum.com/metalw...up-504259-.htm

I thought the truck manufacturers consult professional engineers for questions like this.