Green Laser pen

philba · Post by **philba** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:45 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Chris Smith:
Philba. I can see why learning comes hard for you? With that bout of pseudo logic circumventing all Real logic, Id be struggling with my home work too.<hr></blockquote>clearly, you are humor challenged. home work... a classic "smithism". denigrate by presuming the object of your ridicule to be young and ignorant. The other one is to presume the object of your ridicule to be old and mentally feeble - having forgotten every thing they learned in school. But our hero has attained the enlightenment of advanced degrees and retained all knowledge imparted to him whilst fixing trucks.Have a nice day.

Chris Smith · Post by **Chris Smith** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:55 pm

No, your high balls are amiss. Some where around the planet...., well you know. Starts with U.Youth and/or ignorance is the only cause here. You can step up to the plate and state it for a fact, any time now. You still fail to claim your status on your education, which means your joke [education] is still noted, in the peanut gallery. To advance, your credits are due and forth comming, unless your clown status is all that is desired.“whilst fixing trucks”? A true ergo-amine statement for sure? A joke right? Keep your sense of humor, it’s the first thing to go in a real world. When I worked on vehicles, it was the finest in the world. French, Italian, German and even the Japaneese. 100 years ahead of the Americans.NSU, can you tell me what they did, first? Million dollar European cars need masters to coddle them, understand them, stroke them, but more importantly stroke their owners who have more money than sense. But what would you know, in that dusty back room you call your lab? Even American trash owners like the Cadillac breed need coddling to reassure them that they haven’t been rear ended by some republican.You wouldnt know where to start.[ September 22, 2005: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]

philba · Post by **philba** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:47 pm

wow, you do blather on. About 25% of it actually made sense. Unfortunately the parts that made sense were feeble attempts at insults. Pretty laughable.

Chris Smith · Post by **Chris Smith** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:55 pm

You sound oxygen starved? Is it a “family” thing?This is your best response?

Try getting off the couch, the potato roots are settling in.And PS, no status on your education?Is this deliberate, as in “playing with your self”?[ September 22, 2005: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]

rshayes · Post by **rshayes** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 12:06 am

The real question is whether Chris Smith haas a degree (minimum of BS) in Mechanical Engineering. There is no evidence of this, and there is a fair amount of evidence against it.First, most engineering schools require a certain amount of instruction in English in high school (usually about 3 years). Someone who claims that there is no difference between "your" and "you're" probably was not able to successfully complete the English requirement.The school that I attended further required that I take the SAT test in English Composition. It was not an option. I think that it is obvious that Chris would get a low score on that test as well as the Verbal portion of the SAT which was also required. Engineering schools do require that their students have a basic knowledge of English.Once I was in college, I was required to take two more years of English. There is no evidence that Chris ever did this.Chris has shown that he does not understand work and energy. This is usually covered in the first few weeks of a freshman Physics and may even be covered in a high school physics course. The high school Physics course was another requirement for admission to college. I was required to take two years of Physics after that in college.In another thread, Chris made an issue of the use of the term "foot-pounds" to represent energy. He stated catagorically that that term was incorrect and never used. An editorial by a Mr. Nailen, which is available on the web, pointed out that the use of "foot-pounds" as a unit of energy was the conventional usage. This was confirmed by consulting three handbooks. It appears that Chris is unfamiliar with the English unit system conventions even though he claims to be a mechanical engineer.There was his claim that a 10 foot dish would focus radio waves in the two hundred Kilohertz range. He apparently is unaware of the section in freshman Physics books that discuss the difraction limit of optical systems. The diffraction limit for a 10 foot dish becomes an entire hemisphere somewhere in the Megahertz range.I still have my Physics texts from college, and it is amazing how often they contradict Chris Smith.Then there was his claim in another thread that "microwave waveguides were filled with Freon gas to make them conductive". Interestingly enough, this use of Freon is not even mentioned in the Radiation Lab Series.Under the circumstances, I think that it is about time that Chris start by establishing his credentials rather than demanding them from other people that are obviously better qualified.

Chris Smith · Post by **Chris Smith** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 12:12 am

FOR... .2M MACHININGYep, you are correct.America is at it lowest point in history this century, having Chosen a moron to the white house.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.

On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." - G. W. Bush

Chris Smith · Post by **Chris Smith** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 12:33 am

Steven, interesting and hallow. You fail to stipulate your degrees again [just playing with your self ?] , your position or basic understandings of physics, mechanical engineering, or any thing else. Your SATS were designed when you werent even a a life form, long after so many before you finished their degrees.

Your were A mere spermatozoan of thought in my life when I did my class room education. We didn’t have SATs, let alone the concept, when I went to school. But so much for dinosaurs and ancient history, Work on this and try NOT to choke?Foot pounds V.S. pound feetWhen considering foot pounds as in 550 feet of travel, and a one pound object, and comparing this to its equivalent the 550 pounds /foot, the 550 sum in both cases will be compared in one minute of time, as in one HP for argument sake. The one pound object in order to cover 550 feet of travel in one minute must travel at a average speed of 6.25 mph in order to cover the distance. Angular momentum, mass times gravity, and acceleration factors come into play.
[Way out of your thought, ehh?] These vary largely from a 550 pound object traveling only one foot in one minute where its average speed is only .011 mph and its acceleration rate against gravity is almost negligible compared to the one pound object at 6 mph. Work done at the end of the minute is exactly the same, but the work expended to accomplish this feat is not identical, hence the formation of the standard pound foot, and its reproducible results when comparing one form of work to another. Two identical motors can both lift 550 pound/ foot worth of work over two separate scenarios, and in one minute of elapsed time.One may draw 746 watts of electrical energy to accomplish this feat while the other draws 800 watts to accomplish the same feat. Work done is one hp, work expended is a variable due to a non standard methods of testing. Reproducible facts come from “standards” while foot pounds state no “standard” of how or why it will be accomplished. The foot pound statement may contain a 9 inch diameter pulley, or a two foot pulley/ lever. It may travel 225 feet and contain a two pound mass,... or travel 1100 feet and move a half pound object. Or perhaps it lifts 225 pounds one foot in 30 seconds. All of these variables change the over all equation for work expended, V.S. work done. And this is why the standard was set 300 years ago as pound over foot. Its always compared to one foot, with a variable weight, while the radius remains the same and time is the constant. Mass becomes a “square” in the equation when the constant [time, speed, or acceleration] becomes a variable. If this statement is true, then the following statement also MUST also be true. E=Mc squareWhere Energy is = to Mass times the constant [ time/ speed etc] squared.There fore if the constant squared in one case is 10 seconds squared, [100] and the second instance is 20 seconds squared, [400] then both statements are not the same by a change in the “E” by a factor of not double, but quadruple in this case for a “mass” of one. And energy, is the work needed to accomplish these feats so both even though they move a “equivalent” weight factor over the “equivalent” amount of time and distance, their variables change the over all amount of energy and mass required to accomplish this movement of power for the same comparable “equivalent” of weight and distance.

rshayes · Post by **rshayes** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:35 am

Chris claims to have attended college in the early 1970's. Now let's look at his statements."We didn?t have SATs, let alone the concept, when I went to school."A wikipedia entry on the SAT indicates that it initially began in 1901. By the 1960's it was almost universally required to supply a set of SAT or ACT scores with a college application in this country. Therefore Chris's statement is clearly false. They did have SAT and ACT tests when Chris claimed he was attending college."Your were A mere spermatozoan of thought in my life when I did my class room education."I suppose that this implies that I hadn't been born when Chris was attending college. Again, this is false. I took the SAT in 1962 and began college in 1963, somewhere around 7 years before Chris began his alleged college attendance."Your SATS were designed when you werent even a a life form, long after so many before you finished their degrees."Well, this is true. I wasn't born in 1901. And, many did finish their degrees before that. But Chris wasn't one of them.This is a typical Chris Smith rant. He makes up his own fantasy and then accuses everyone else of ignorance if they don't agree to it.It is clear that Chris never took the SAT or ACT tests. It is extremely unlikely that he entered an engineering college in the 1970's without one of them. If you don't matriculate, I fail to see how you can graduate.

philba · Post by **philba** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:32 am

What i don't understand is why all this blather over degrees (yes, stephen, I know you didn't start it).I didn't know that I had to state my degree in order to be taken seriously in this forum. If content is any guide, a degree in Maldictia is the only one that would seem to be of benefit.And yes, I have several degrees, BA Math/Physics, MS CS with a minor in EE(digital). I took my SATs in 1970

rshayes · Post by **rshayes** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:13 pm

I agree with Philba.I am perfectly willing to let the posts speak for themselves, whether or not the poster has an academic degree. I have known several good engineers that did not have degrees and I have known several poor engineers that did have degrees.However, in the last week Chris has delivered three personal attacks, against Will, Philba, and myself, claiming that we were ignorant because we didn't have degrees and that he did. Enough is enough.Since the subject has come up, my BS was in Engineering and Applied Science.[ September 23, 2005: Message edited by: stephen ]

Chris Smith · Post by **Chris Smith** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:02 pm

Somebody got help from their gym coach today for that answer?

Sorry, we didn’t have SATs, so you boo booed again.In fact in Sydney, I had never even heard about SATs. When I came back to the US, I heard about them though. Sorry, you got one more wrong answer, but I am still amused and here to help you out. And we didn’t call them SATs when I attended School in California either, back in the late 60s. Perhaps they had them when you were about to attend college, assuming you have any degrees, I wouldn’t know. I attended in another country by then, and I never took one let alone heard of them.

But guessing how it all works is your thing, as if to tell us all your Caranac the magician, so more power to you. Lets hear some more physics guess work, I love it quite honestly. What ever you called them in your part of the land hardly applies to me now, does is it? As if you were in all places at all times. Bad guess on your part, really.

Will · Post by **Will** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 9:49 am

OK Chris - The insults are tiresome and juvenile.
- In your last post you were burbling on about acceleration, work expended to accomplish etc. It seems fairly clear to me that you are familiar with these words yet can't relate them in math. form. If that were not the case then you would have expressed yourself more clearly.
'Work expended to accomplish this' demonstrates this i.e. Work is not expended - it is converted to kinetic energy, which may or may not be recovered (Or expended) during subsequent deceleration.
To prove me incorrect and for yourself to remain the knight in shining armor you present to us - Take your four examples i.e. weights of 550 lbf 1.0 ft in one minute, 1.0 lbf 550 ft in one minute, 2.0 lbf 225 ft in one minute and 0.5 lbf 1100 ft in one minute and calculate (a) The kinetic energy for each case and (b) the force required to accelerate to each individual case velocity. Do each case twice i.e. (i) assuming your weights moved at uniform velocity during the elapsed one minute and (ii) Assuming the weights to have been accelerated from zero velocity.
Put up . . or . . . shut up and I will do them for you. Y'all take care Put up or shut-up Chris. The

Chris Smith · Post by **Chris Smith** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 10:11 am

“IF they moved in a uniform velocity”, then they would be using the standard called Pound/foot, and the Standard results would apply. But, foot pounds don’t stipulate the use of any standard, there fore the velocity is not the same, thus the mass is a variable to the standard, hence they don’t apply.
Put up or shut up your self. Do the math, mass increases with speed or velocity by a square factor.

Will · Post by **Will** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:16 pm

As I suspected - your reply is an absolute bunch of BS -- Mass increases with velocity squared - only in Einsteinian Physics - in preactical cases the mass stays the same and the kE increases as velocity squared. The stuff about foot/pound = non-standard and pound.foot being standard is also 1st class BS
OK - I will put up or shut up myself - I will put up !
If our 1.0 lbf mass (Mass = weight at Earth surface) is accelerated uniformly, by applying a constant force from zero velocity, to the point where it travels a total of 550 ft in one minute minute then its' final velocity is 1100 ft/min which is 18.33ft/sec. If it was accelerated to this velocity over a period of 60 secs then the force required is 0.009497 lbf. Since this force is applied over a distance of 550 ft. then the work done is 0.009497*550 = 5.2233 ft.lbf. which should be exactly equal to the kinetic energy of the 1.0 lbf mass at 1100 ft/min = 18.3333 ft/sec. The kE is therefore 18.333*18.333/64.3481 = 5.2233 ft.lbf. Q.E.D
Now I've put up - can you do the rest ?

Chris Smith · Post by **Chris Smith** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:05 pm

I can see the gym coach helped you with that one? My favorite... “only in Einsteinian Physics” was the kicker, where one set of rules applies in one universe, but not in yours? Where is your universe, circling the 7th planet? You are truly a google joke. Pick up a first year physics book and stop spreading your trash. The speed of an object determines its mass, and any gym teacher can instruct you on that one. Throw the base ball against your head slowly, and then repeat it fast, and even in the gym class can illustrate first year physics to you the hard way? The faster it goes, the more kinetic energy it has and the more kinetic energy it contains, the more its mass, thus all of the equations change with mass, momentum, and acceleration. Who exactly are you trying to fool, your self?I Cant wait to hear how you get a 550 pound object to move uniform and equal to a one pound object. The start up resistance against mass and momentum alone will screw that up. No uniformity there?Apples and oranges are not the same, sorry? But Im sure you have a secrete plan to make them equal, so they both can be “uniform” even though their weight factor is different by a factor of 550 and their mass is even more. But, if we apply the mystical “Uniform Monster ”to a non uniform situation AND if it cooperates, then the math might even work out, ehh?The Mass of an object is a measure of its inertia.The Weight of the object is the force with which gravity pulls on it.There is nothing “Uniform” about the comparison of a One pound object traveling 550 feet in one minute and a 550 pound object moving one foot in one minute. The mass, the inertia, and the velocity are not uniform to each other, nor are they even near the ball park let alone in the ball park. Two situations, two final math figures, one is a standard, the other one is not.[ September 24, 2005: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]

T&L Publications

Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Re: Green Laser pen

Who is online