Architecture - Is this a catenary curve?

Author

Is this a catenary curve?

Kris Krieger

2006-09-27, 1:25 pm

http://www.abraxasarts.com/custompr...tml/bridge.html

I read about what a catenary is theoretically, just wondering whether this
looks like the use of one in a product (I found the product link and
decided to ask because it's IMO an intersting item).

TIA

Ken S. Tucker

2006-09-27, 1:25 pm

Kris Krieger wrote:
> http://www.abraxasarts.com/custompr...tml/bridge.html
>
> I read about what a catenary is theoretically, just wondering whether this
> looks like the use of one in a product (I found the product link and
> decided to ask because it's IMO an intersting item).
>
> TIA

Good thing to review, this is a good article on
the catenary,

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

I doubt the thing in your pic is entirely catenary,
but the top part (above the cables) might be.
We viewed the Arch of St. Louis, beautiful.
I suppose in architectural engineering the
catenary is mentioned for 5 minutes, not
sure it's very useful, just something to know.

BTW, when ya get that decking finished sure hope
you'll post a pix or two.
Ken

RicodJour

2006-09-27, 1:25 pm

Tim

2006-09-27, 5:25 pm

> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> Nyet. The catenary is a smooth curve without any abrupt transitions.
> The pictured foot bridge is more or less peaked.
>
> Did your reading touch on Antonio Gaudi's work?
>
> R

Thats a good call
The pictures of his upside down chain force models are really something else

Tim

Bob Morrison

2006-09-27, 8:25 pm

In a previous post Kris Krieger wrote...
> I read about what a catenary is theoretically, just wondering whether this
> looks like the use of one in a product (I found the product link and
> decided to ask because it's IMO an intersting item).
>

From a structural point of view, the product behaves similar to a scissors
truss.

While the product looks cool, I personally would not want to use the
bridge. Too easy to trip and put your foot through between the treads.

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

Kris Krieger

2006-09-27, 8:25 pm

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1159375553.981538.208480@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> Good thing to review, this is a good article on
> the catenary,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catenary

I saved the diagram, that's a good reference.

> I doubt the thing in your pic is entirely catenary,
> but the top part (above the cables) might be.

It was the reduced roundedness of the angle that made me wonder...

> We viewed the Arch of St. Louis, beautiful.

I got to see that some years ago - had a junky old camera but my pic of
it remains one of my favorites; I have to scan it (now that I finally
got a new scanner). Did you go inside of it? I hate closed spaces and
heights, but nevertheless I'm glad I went up to the top; the view was
great.

Anyhoo:

> I suppose in architectural engineering the
> catenary is mentioned for 5 minutes, not
> sure it's very useful, just something to know.

When I saw the footbridge, I recalled someone very recently mentioning
here that he likes catenaries quite a lot, so that stuck in my mind.
Sort of like my own enjoyment of "golden spirals" ;) Sometimes things
aren't necessarily the most useful or practical, but are stubbornly
"neat" or "fun" ;)

I have to do some more searching but will try to find other examples and
see how they look. It's just one more thing I'm curious about ;)

>
> BTW, when ya get that decking finished sure hope
> you'll post a pix or two.
> Ken
>

Well, if the weather holds (past 2 days have been beautiful here), they
might pour tomorrow. But it's supposed to start getting rainy again
towards the weekend. So, we'll see. Once the concrete is poured,
they'll put that textured "sun-cool" topping on - it doesn't look as
classy as flagstone or some other things, but I really needed something
that's as un-slippery as possible without resorting to putting down
foam-rubber <L!> Also, it really does stay a lot cooler, which in turn,
makes the paved area much more useful.

Then the plaster goes in, and then, the water. THe plaster is a medium
or "cadet" type blue base, with natural color pebbles embedded in it.
So I'll probably wait to take pics until it's all together, because I
designed the pool style/shape (the pool poeple of course planned the
engineering things <g!> ) and picked the colors pretty much all at once,
and the proverbial "proof of the pudding" will only come when everything
is assembled and done. I'm persnickety that way. Probably because I
too often have pics and drawings of plans or half-completed things, and
so few actually gets finished (one hazard of frequent moves).

SO I'm wanting to see it all *finished* ;) . Then - Yeah, I gotta get
some photos, among other things - like, get back to work on my dang
website =:-o So many distractions... ;)

Ken S. Tucker

2006-09-28, 1:25 pm

Bob Morrison wrote:
> In a previous post Kris Krieger wrote...
>
> From a structural point of view, the product behaves similar to a scissors
> truss.
>
> While the product looks cool, I personally would not want to use the
> bridge. Too easy to trip and put your foot through between the treads.

Thing looks like it would be good for a sobriety test.
Keeping thoses narrow steps from twisting is a
problem, they should use another set of spans above
and put wider steps between them.
Ken
> --
> Bob Morrison, PE, SE
> R L Morrison Engineering Co
> Structural & Civil Engineering
> Poulsbo WA
> bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

Kris Krieger

2006-09-28, 1:25 pm

"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in
news:1159381467.692579.275880@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> Nyet. The catenary is a smooth curve without any abrupt transitions.
> The pictured foot bridge is more or less peaked.

Ah, OK. It's less interesting then. It might sound a little odd, but I
prefer it when a design that's - oh geez, what would be the word,
arrgh!!, modern?, abstract?, "edgy"?,

Arrrgh, let me start over. If a design is non-traditional, and tries to
utilize unusual geometries or mathematicaly-based paths/shapes <??>, I
like it to be just that - illustrate something, and not just be
arbitrary merely for the sake of being "different" or "odd". So, I like
logarithmic curves, golden spirals, that sort of thing. or, if
something is going to look like a catenary sort of curve, then it
shouldn't just beat around the bush about it - it should *be* that. I
don't know whether that explanation makes sense. But I'd find the item
more interesting if it was what it looks like it might be hinting at
being.

When I saw the pic, it looked possibly interesting, but also "off" in
some way. And now I know why, IOW, since you pointed out it is not a
defined curve - but probably just an arbitrarily bent thing.

A lot of the time, if something is like that - seems like it should be
interesting but is somehow "off" - it usually turns out that, when I
work out the measurements/proportions, they are not ordered, but appear
to be arbitrary/random (even Chaos has the "order" of Strange
Attractors).

((Oh no - just as an example of how my brain is - for some reason,
"attractors" muted into "arrrghtractors" and then I thought, "gee, were
pirates called "Arrrrrghonauts"...? Yes, folks, it's weirder around
here than you realize =8-O !))

At any rate, I guess that IMO, there is a point when "artistic license"
and "imagination" seem to leave any reference to reality and cross over
into the silly. Not that that is, of course, any sort of dictate to
anyone else - just my own personal perception.

Ken's link had a diagram (ahowing some verious catenaries) which I
saved, and will bring over to my computer (the graphics/ed machine) as a
reference, and maybe I'll play with that a bit. I think there were some
math formulae - if I can turn them into algebraic expressions, I might
be able to enter them into my 3D program's Object Parameters windolet.

OTOH there *is* this:
http://www.4dsolutions.net/ocn/catenary.html
which I saved, so I ought to be able to call the Python script (also
saved) into my 3D program and play around with it from there. It'd
beinteresing/fun if I can apply it to 3D objects (i.e., as opposed to
only lines). Then I could play with that and see what I can learn about
the visual characteristics of a 3D catenary object, and have some
spatial references tucked away in the old "Wet RAM" ;)

>
> Did your reading touch on Antonio Gaudi's work?
>
> R
>
>

I'd only done a bit, and a while back at that, but I will be looking for
some more examples. But I've seen a number of images of Gaudi's work,
and find it very interesting. A quick look through a Google of
""Antonio Gaudi" + catenary" has been interesting.

I think this was food for thought:
http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/gaudihotelshort.html
at least as more grist for the mill in conjunction with some of the
other stuff I've seen. Also got an interesting PDF for alter perusal,
and so on.

At any rate, one thing I'm looking to find is the comparison, in terms
of supporting a load, between a catenary arch and more
"normal/regular/common" arches. This looks interesting (OK, looks like
elementary school materials but hey, I never learned this stuff in
school, never heard of it 'till the past couple years, and better late
than never ;) !)
http://www.cpo.com/Weblabs/chap3/archf.htm

Anyway, good ideas, they led me to some good info - thanks

Kris Krieger

2006-09-28, 5:25 pm

Bob Morrison <SpamFighter@junk.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1f84a131ec4966ec989c29@news.west.earthlink.net:

> In a previous post Kris Krieger wrote...
>
> From a structural point of view, the product behaves similar to a
> scissors truss.

Google gave me a good pic. It seems to me that it'd be possible to also
use that sort of structure to make a small footbridge.

> While the product looks cool, I personally would not want to use the
> bridge. Too easy to trip and put your foot through between the
> treads.

Definitely - at least some metal mesh, or clear tempered glass, or
Lexan, should be between the treads. As a product, it's IMO purely
decorative, with only minimal practicality, esp. for those of us whose
balance isn't all that great =:-o

For a footbridge for a larger space, I'd seen this program and found it
interesting:
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/0500feat.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostem...ina/builds.html

I haven't thought about whether it could be scaled-down and adapted to a
smaller space.

If I were to try to come up with one from scratch - well, that's a
completely different story =:-o

Bob Morrison

2006-09-28, 5:25 pm

In a previous post Kris Krieger wrote...
> For a footbridge for a larger space, I'd seen this program and found it
> interesting:
> http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/0500feat.html
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostem...ina/builds.html
>
> I haven't thought about whether it could be scaled-down and adapted to a
> smaller space.
>
> If I were to try to come up with one from scratch - well, that's a
> completely different story =:-o
>

Kris:

I saw that NOVA piece. It was pretty interesting. Of course with today's
glu-lams it is a lot easier to get long-span curved beams. As I recall,
the big issues with the Chinese bridge was how to span across the channel
without the use of a large crane or any temporary supports in the middle
of the river.

I have an analogous situation on my property here. I need to build an
about 20-foot span bridge, but I cannot get to the other side of the creek
because of disagreements with my neighbor. I also cannot get a large
crane or excavator onto the bridge site without taking down quite a few
trees. I'm considering the use of an A-frame hoist that could be used to
lift 20-foot treated glu-lams (maybe with an arch) across the creek.
Alternatively, I have a big pile of round (6"-9") creosote treated fence
posts about 8 feet long. I may yet come with a way to make those into
some sort of truss bridge which can be launched from one side to span to
the other.

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

Kris Krieger

2006-09-28, 8:25 pm

Bob Morrison <SpamFighter@junk.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1f85cc2acd2fca55989c2e@news.west.earthlink.net:

> In a previous post Kris Krieger wrote...
>
> Kris:
>
> I saw that NOVA piece. It was pretty interesting. Of course with
> today's glu-lams it is a lot easier to get long-span curved beams. As
> I recall, the big issues with the Chinese bridge was how to span
> across the channel without the use of a large crane or any temporary
> supports in the middle of the river.

Right, the only remaining clue was an 800 yr old painting (as per the
website - I didn't remember that part), and you know, there are folks
who like to try to recreate things using ancient technology. IMO that
sort of thing is fascinating, because it gives one different problem-
solving methods ((this tangentially relates to the website link someone
offered, last week I think, for "Linbdsay's Technical Books" - whcih
offeres reprints of pre-microchip-era texts, manuals, instruction books,
and the like - IMO, very very nifty... but I digress, as usual...))

The re-creation also, I think, stuck with bamboo timbers.

> I have an analogous situation on my property here. I need to build an
> about 20-foot span bridge, but I cannot get to the other side of the
> creek because of disagreements with my neighbor. I also cannot get a
> large crane or excavator onto the bridge site without taking down
> quite a few trees. I'm considering the use of an A-frame hoist that
> could be used to lift 20-foot treated glu-lams (maybe with an arch)
> across the creek. Alternatively, I have a big pile of round (6"-9")
> creosote treated fence posts about 8 feet long. I may yet come with a
> way to make those into some sort of truss bridge which can be launched
> from one side to span to the other.

Maybe you could the a-frame and some pulleys to get a temporary span
across it, and then use the temporary span as a place to stand and/or to
support additional equipment during construction of the actual item.
THen you might even be able to re-purpose the frame and temporary-span
materials.

It's a shame to fell the trees merely to bring in some huge machinery.
Seems like a bit of pre-industrial methodology could do you quite well
in this situation. Also, less pollution, less disturbance of wildlife,
less chance of crumbling the creek banks, and so on. So overall, seems
to me that low-tech might be best-tech in this situation.

I'd be curious to know what solution you come up with, esp. if it's "old
tech" ;)

Ken S. Tucker

2006-09-29, 3:25 am

Bob Morrison wrote:
....
> I have an analogous situation on my property here. I need to build an
> about 20-foot span bridge, but I cannot get to the other side of the creek
> because of disagreements with my neighbor. I also cannot get a large
> crane or excavator onto the bridge site without taking down quite a few
> trees. I'm considering the use of an A-frame hoist that could be used to
> lift 20-foot treated glu-lams (maybe with an arch) across the creek.
> Alternatively, I have a big pile of round (6"-9") creosote treated fence
> posts about 8 feet long. I may yet come with a way to make those into
> some sort of truss bridge which can be launched from one side to span to
> the other.

That's a common problem in building docks.
Snow load is a big factor, what's your max?
What width do you want, and would you be
transporting heavy equiptment on the bridge?
Does your creek become a torrent with debris
in the spring?

Obviously I'm looking to establish a Sectional
Modulus and keep an eye out for catastrophics.

I like box beams, a pair 16" high & 4.5" wide
sounds ball park, though I can check the SM
on that. So I use 2x4's top and bottom, and
1/2" plywood on the sides of each beam,
screwed and glued, and vented.

The weight of a beam is ~
2 x 1/2" 4'x8' plywood + 48' of 2x4 (~6 8'footers).
To place the beam you only need to man handle
one end == 1 sheet of plywood + 3 8' 2x4's, not
too bad, easy with a helper, presuming you can
wade the creek, otherwise you can use a row
boat. If the creek is fast and/or deep (?) then a
more technical cable means should work.
Once the beams are placed and braced the bridge
floor goes on.
((coyotes are outside fuckin yelpin' tonight))

Here's some photo's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge

Depending on your shore and requirements, a
rope bridge might work.

> --
> Bob Morrison, PE, SE
> R L Morrison Engineering Co
> Structural & Civil Engineering
> Poulsbo WA
> bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

Ken, Okanagan BC.

Bob Morrison

2006-09-29, 1:25 pm

In a previous post Ken S. Tucker wrote...
> That's a common problem in building docks.
> Snow load is a big factor, what's your max?
> What width do you want, and would you be
> transporting heavy equiptment on the bridge?
> Does your creek become a torrent with debris
> in the spring?
>

Ken:

I do want to get my small Ford tractor across the bridge for some
selective wood cutting (firewood). The tractor is probably in the 1800-
2500 pound range.

This will require a minimum 5-foot wide bridge (6 feet is better).

The creek runs fast and deep in the spring, but has almost no water by the
end of August. However, it has cut an 8-foot, almost vertical sided
channel that is too deep to walk across.

My plan right now is to drop a couple of the nearby alders across the
creek as a temporary footbridge. I will use two others to construct an A-
Frame which cam be tilted forward and back with the use of my tractor.

A simple cable/pulley or come-along can serve as the vertical hoist
mechanism. I can use the creosoted 8-foot fence posts I mentioned earlier
to create abutments on both sides. All I need now is a way to span the 20
feet without spending a ton of money on beams. I'm think that 3 or 4 PT
glu-lams with 4x PT decking would do the job for all this, although a
precast concrete plank made on-site has some attractions.

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

RicodJour

2006-09-29, 1:25 pm

Bob Morrison wrote:
>
> I do want to get my small Ford tractor across the bridge for some
> selective wood cutting (firewood). The tractor is probably in the 1800-
> 2500 pound range.

Will the bridge be entirely utilitarian or a visible feature of the
landscaping? If it's the latter, a bolted truss bridge with bottom
hung decking would be nice. The trusses would act as guard rails and
allow you to put a roof over the bridge. Covered bridges are most
excellent.

> This will require a minimum 5-foot wide bridge (6 feet is better).
>
> The creek runs fast and deep in the spring, but has almost no water by the
> end of August. However, it has cut an 8-foot, almost vertical sided
> channel that is too deep to walk across.
>
> My plan right now is to drop a couple of the nearby alders across the
> creek as a temporary footbridge. I will use two others to construct an A-
> Frame which cam be tilted forward and back with the use of my tractor.

I know the AHJ can be frustrating at times, but "dropping" an alder man
(or woman) in your own yard is sure to make the 11 o'clock news. Sink
them instead.

> A simple cable/pulley or come-along can serve as the vertical hoist
> mechanism. I can use the creosoted 8-foot fence posts I mentioned earlier
> to create abutments on both sides. All I need now is a way to span the 20
> feet without spending a ton of money on beams. I'm think that 3 or 4 PT
> glu-lams with 4x PT decking would do the job for all this, although a
> precast concrete plank made on-site has some attractions.

Just as it would be unwise for a surgeon to elect to do his own
appendectomy, you should not do your own engineering. You're too close
to the project and your biases might affect your critical thinking.
Seriously* consider hiring out the design/engineering.

R

* ;)

Kris Krieger

2006-09-29, 1:25 pm

Bob Morrison <SpamFighter@junk.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1f86ce54c58e1e55989c2f@news.west.earthlink.net:

> In a previous post Ken S. Tucker wrote...
>
> Ken:
>
> I do want to get my small Ford tractor across the bridge for some
> selective wood cutting (firewood). The tractor is probably in the
> 1800- 2500 pound range.

Oh! You didn't mention that part. Well, no "ancient solutions" there
=:-o . I'd thought you just wanted a foot-bridge...

> This will require a minimum 5-foot wide bridge (6 feet is better).
>
> The creek runs fast and deep in the spring, but has almost no water by
> the end of August. However, it has cut an 8-foot, almost vertical
> sided channel that is too deep to walk across.
>
> My plan right now is to drop a couple of the nearby alders across the
> creek as a temporary footbridge. I will use two others to construct
> an A- Frame which cam be tilted forward and back with the use of my
> tractor.
>
> A simple cable/pulley or come-along can serve as the vertical hoist
> mechanism. I can use the creosoted 8-foot fence posts I mentioned
> earlier to create abutments on both sides. All I need now is a way to
> span the 20 feet without spending a ton of money on beams. I'm think
> that 3 or 4 PT glu-lams with 4x PT decking would do the job for all
> this, although a precast concrete plank made on-site has some
> attractions.
>

Ken S. Tucker

2006-09-29, 1:25 pm

Bob Morrison wrote:
> In a previous post Ken S. Tucker wrote...
>
> Ken:
>
> I do want to get my small Ford tractor across the bridge for some
> selective wood cutting (firewood). The tractor is probably in the 1800-
> 2500 pound range.

Ok, adding a trailer with wood, the weight of
the bridge and a driver with a big belly how
about 4800# mid-span weight.
I arrive at Sectional Modulus of ~420 in^3 over
a 20' span, (correct me if I'm wrong please).

> This will require a minimum 5-foot wide bridge (6 feet is better).

Ok, on 12" centers, use 7 beams.
A 2"x16" has an SM of ~ 64 in^3,
which totals to 7x64 = 448 which is adequate.
A 2x16 x20' weighs ~ 100#, that's 50#'s at each
end :-), easy for two guys.

> The creek runs fast and deep in the spring, but has almost no water by the
> end of August. However, it has cut an 8-foot, almost vertical sided
> channel that is too deep to walk across.
>
> My plan right now is to drop a couple of the nearby alders across the
> creek as a temporary footbridge.

If my figures are correct, you may not need to
bother with a temp foot-bridge, you could easily
walk up a ladder on the opposite 8' bank with
a 50# beam on your shoulder, only needs to be
done 7 times.

> I will use two others to construct an A-
> Frame which cam be tilted forward and back with the use of my tractor.
> A simple cable/pulley or come-along can serve as the vertical hoist
> mechanism.

That sounds like a real hassle.

> I can use the creosoted 8-foot fence posts I mentioned earlier
> to create abutments on both sides. All I need now is a way to span the 20
> feet without spending a ton of money on beams. I'm think that 3 or 4 PT
> glu-lams with 4x PT decking would do the job for all this,

I favor box beams cuz the're tried, true and simple to do,
it's usually the favorite for wing spars, I did a quicky for
a box beam with 24" plywood on the sides of 4"x4" s at
the top and bottom and the SM is ~ 300, but using a pair
of those leaves the problem of spanning the floor load
to a pair of those beams, which can be a pain, and
probably too complicated for this app.

> although a
> precast concrete plank made on-site has some attractions.

I think your PT wood beam idea is best so far.

> Bob Morrison, PE, SE
> R L Morrison Engineering Co
> Structural & Civil Engineering
> Poulsbo WA
> bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

Hey Bob, if you have any pix of the bridge location
looks really interesting.
Ken

Ken S. Tucker

2006-09-29, 5:25 pm

Kris Krieger wrote:
> Bob Morrison <SpamFighter@junk.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1f86ce54c58e1e55989c2f@news.west.earthlink.net:
>
>
> Oh! You didn't mention that part. Well, no "ancient solutions" there
> =:-o . I'd thought you just wanted a foot-bridge...

What really impressed me when I was a little kid
was how strong "corrugated cardboard" was per
it's weight, it's amazing! If you look carefully, it's
a sequence of box beams. If Mr. Morrison could
screw and glue plywood to the underside of his
spanner beams the strength increases big time.
I did that in a floor in my old work shop and it
works.
It's rather like birds and dinosaurs having hollow
bones, even evolution favors that design, neat ay.
Placing a couple of tons mid-span on his bridge
is not really a big problem, it's all engineered and
tabulated, it's a matter of choosing the method of
support vs the enviroment.
Ken

RicodJour

2006-09-29, 8:25 pm

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Bob Morrison wrote:
>
> Ok, adding a trailer with wood, the weight of
> the bridge and a driver with a big belly how

Big belly? Try monument to fermented beverage consumption!

> about 4800# mid-span weight.
> I arrive at Sectional Modulus of ~420 in^3 over
> a 20' span, (correct me if I'm wrong please).

{engage semantics engine}
It's section modulus and there's no need to capitalize it as it's not a
proper, or improper for that matter, noun. If you normally capitalize
Fuel Capacity or Pounds, then ignore the capitalization advice. ;)

>
> Ok, on 12" centers, use 7 beams.
> A 2"x16" has an SM of ~ 64 in^3,
> which totals to 7x64 = 448 which is adequate.
> A 2x16 x20' weighs ~ 100#, that's 50#'s at each
> end :-), easy for two guys.

Where do you buy the aerated PT? Bone dry cedar would weigh over a
hundred pounds, and it's not cedar and it will most likely be soaking
wet as treated wood is wont to be. Closer to 200#, I'd wager.
Anything that's that big, sawn lumber and treated is going to shrink a
lot, warp, twist and do everything short of an Immelman. All of that
can be addressed, but it has to be done immediately or the stuff will
start to move.

>
> If my figures are correct, you may not need to
> bother with a temp foot-bridge, you could easily
> walk up a ladder on the opposite 8' bank with
> a 50# beam on your shoulder, only needs to be
> done 7 times.

How are you envisioning that the guy on the far bank gets there since
there's no footbridge in your scenario? How does the far end of the
2x16 get to the far side of the bridge without a footbridge? Standing
it up would be fun, and watching it fall, maybe cracking/breaking,
wouldn't be so much fun.

>
> That sounds like a real hassle.

Bob's way is basic rigging procedure and is a safe way to do it. He
could also use a gin pole, string a cable between trees on either bank,
build it from one side using cable over a vert to support the
freeboard ends - there are a bunch of ways to build it, working from
one side or both. A come along, and safe practices, are of primary
importance in this sort of thing.

I thought you were from the granola coast, Bob. PT and creosote over
that virgin stream? Have you considered greener alternatives? PT isn't
green just because it's green.
[color=darkred]
> I favor box beams cuz the're tried, true and simple to do,
> it's usually the favorite for wing spars, I did a quicky for
> a box beam with 24" plywood on the sides of 4"x4" s at
> the top and bottom and the SM is ~ 300, but using a pair
> of those leaves the problem of spanning the floor load
> to a pair of those beams, which can be a pain, and
> probably too complicated for this app.

Too complicated? We're talking to Bob "The Dude" Morrison, here. It's
not like his time has any meaning or value to us. Feel free to spend
as much of his time and money as you feel necessary. ;)

There's that famous Chinese bridge that might be BoMo-ified.
http://pacifi.ca/images/PuqingBridge.jpg
Something like this:
http://pacifi.ca/6_27foot.html
[color=darkred]

Gunite. WWPLND What Would Pier Luigi Nervi Do?

R

RicodJour

2006-09-29, 9:25 pm

Bob Morrison wrote:
>
> I do want to get my small Ford tractor across the bridge for some
> selective wood cutting (firewood). The tractor is probably in the 1800-
> 2500 pound range.

Food for thought.
http://pacifi.ca/models.html

R

Don

2006-09-30, 3:25 am

"RicodJour"> wrote
> Just as it would be unwise for a surgeon to elect to do his own
> appendectomy, you should not do your own engineering. You're too close
> to the project and your biases might affect your critical thinking.
> Seriously* consider hiring out the design/engineering.

I can't agree with that.
There is no way that I can imagine that I would ever hire someone to design
my house for me.
Its just not possible, the surgeon analogy doesn't work here, nor does the
lawyer one.

Basically, 'If you can't design for yourself, then how can you design for
others?'
If one is capable of designing, then one is capable of designing for any,
including oneself.

I will instantly admit that designing for oneself carries additional
baggage, but I also believe that *parameters* are what design is all about.
Designing for oneself is a huge parameter because your own emotions are
involved and perhaps those of your spouse or SO, etc.

Imagine designing 1000 homes in a row that are 1 story, and then a client
asks you to design a 2 story.
Do you turn the client down, or do you take it on and scale the new
obstacles that are inherent?

The best lessons come from less than perfect scenarios and designing for
oneself is a hard lesson.
YOU will be your best and worst client.
Worst because you are impossible to satisfy and best because you learn
immeasurably.
The best criticism comes from self......

RicodJour

2006-09-30, 3:25 am

Don wrote:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
> I can't agree with that.
> There is no way that I can imagine that I would ever hire someone to design
> my house for me.
> Its just not possible, the surgeon analogy doesn't work here, nor does the
> lawyer one.

You wouldn't hire me? Sheesh. Nice way to break it to a guy.

> Basically, 'If you can't design for yourself, then how can you design for
> others?'
> If one is capable of designing, then one is capable of designing for any,
> including oneself.

Moot .

> I will instantly admit that designing for oneself carries additional
> baggage, but I also believe that *parameters* are what design is all about.
> Designing for oneself is a huge parameter because your own emotions are
> involved and perhaps those of your spouse or SO, etc.

Can't argue that.

> Imagine designing 1000 homes in a row that are 1 story, and then a client
> asks you to design a 2 story.

There'd be a crater where my head was after the first 50. I'm waiting
for the guy asking for a light house. That would be a nice project.

> Do you turn the client down, or do you take it on and scale the new
> obstacles that are inherent?
>
> The best lessons come from less than perfect scenarios and designing for
> oneself is a hard lesson.
> YOU will be your best and worst client.
> Worst because you are impossible to satisfy and best because you learn
> immeasurably.
> The best criticism comes from self......

I believe you missed the footnote in my original post, Don. Check it
again - it changes the gist of what I was saying.

R

Ken S. Tucker

2006-09-30, 1:25 pm

RicodJour wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> Big belly? Try monument to fermented beverage consumption!
>
>
> {engage semantics engine}
> It's section modulus and there's no need to capitalize it as it's not a
> proper, or improper for that matter, noun. If you normally capitalize
> Fuel Capacity or Pounds, then ignore the capitalization advice. ;)

Thanks, Acronym Capitalization Designator, ACD.

>
> Where do you buy the aerated PT? Bone dry cedar would weigh over a
> hundred pounds, and it's not cedar and it will most likely be soaking
> wet as treated wood is wont to be. Closer to 200#, I'd wager.

At the lumber yard the shipment is marked
with total weight and number of pieces, a
2x8x10' == 22# not PT tho, so I figure a
2x16x20 ~ 100# PT. Call them and find out.

> Anything that's that big, sawn lumber and treated is going to shrink a
> lot, warp, twist and do everything short of an Immelman. All of that
> can be addressed, but it has to be done immediately or the stuff will
> start to move.
>
>
> How are you envisioning that the guy on the far bank gets there since
> there's no footbridge in your scenario?

Ladder(s).

> How does the far end of the
> 2x16 get to the far side of the bridge without a footbridge? Standing
> it up would be fun, and watching it fall, maybe cracking/breaking,
> wouldn't be so much fun.

Slide it down the bank, take it up the other side,
obviously a base is prepared on each side.

>
> Bob's way is basic rigging procedure and is a safe way to do it. He
> could also use a gin pole, string a cable between trees on either bank,
> build it from one side using cable over a vert to support the
> freeboard ends - there are a bunch of ways to build it, working from
> one side or both. A come along, and safe practices, are of primary
> importance in this sort of thing.

Ok, but manhandling those "alders" for an initial
foot bridge and an A-frame doesn't sound easy,
how much do you figure they would weigh?

>
> I thought you were from the granola coast, Bob. PT and creosote over
> that virgin stream? Have you considered greener alternatives? PT isn't
> green just because it's green.

We've studied that problem for dock crib construction,
the leaching is's too diluted to have an impact. A motor
running beside the dock for 5 minutes causes more
water pollution than leaching does in a year.

>
> Too complicated? We're talking to Bob "The Dude" Morrison, here. It's
> not like his time has any meaning or value to us. Feel free to spend
> as much of his time and money as you feel necessary. ;)

Sure, I treat Bob's post as a fun exercize, rather
like an engineering quiz.

> There's that famous Chinese bridge that might be BoMo-ified.
> http://pacifi.ca/images/PuqingBridge.jpg
> Something like this:
> http://pacifi.ca/6_27foot.html

Those examples are pretty foot bridges, using
a crew and poured foundations and notably
without load specs. Bob's conditions are a
solitary builder building a bridge to support
vehicular weight with minimum cost in an fairly
inaccessible location.
I wouldn't like the idea of driving a tractor up
a slippery ramp over a fast moving stream.
" Mr. insurance agent, I'm soaking wet and my
tractor is under 8' of water, can I have $10,000
to replace it?"

>
> Gunite. WWPLND What Would Pier Luigi Nervi Do?
> R

Regards
Ken

Warm Worm

2006-09-30, 5:25 pm

"RicodJour"
>
> Don wrote:
>
> I believe you missed the footnote in my original post, Don. Check it
> again - it changes the gist of what I was saying.

Damn text-based communication! ;)

RicodJour

2006-10-01, 3:25 am

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
>
> At the lumber yard the shipment is marked
> with total weight and number of pieces, a
> 2x8x10' == 22# not PT tho, so I figure a
> 2x16x20 ~ 100# PT. Call them and find out.

No need. I pick up enough of it. Pressure treating can come close to
doubling the weight of the board. Being pumped full of juices it'll
shrink a lot which isn't a problem unless you have a really wide board.
;)
http://www.treatedwood.com/products/generalfaq.html#3

{The Dude wrote}[color=darkred]
>
> Ladder(s).
>
>
> Slide it down the bank, take it up the other side,
> obviously a base is prepared on each side.
>
>
> Ok, but manhandling those "alders" for an initial
> foot bridge and an A-frame doesn't sound easy,
> how much do you figure they would weigh?

I assume that the trees in question are in a good position to fell
across, and the tractor can be used to drag them around if necessary
(at least on the one side). Lose the limbs add some scrap plywood, and
there's your footbridge.

If the bed pretty much dries up after August I suppose scaffolding
sections could be set up with some planks. That would be about as much
work as the tree footbridge thing, and if it was directly under the
permanent bridge location it would be far more useful. It'd save a lot
of time and effort instead of climbing up and down ladders carrying
things.

I had images of a Bob-buchet being employed for transportation of
personnel. http://www.answers.com/topic/trebuchet-jpg

>
> We've studied that problem for dock crib construction,
> the leaching is's too diluted to have an impact. A motor
> running beside the dock for 5 minutes causes more
> water pollution than leaching does in a year.

The effect on the environment isn't limited to in situ leaching, but I
agree it's low on the scale of environmental atrocities, at least at
Villa di Bob.

>
> Sure, I treat Bob's post as a fun exercize, rather
> like an engineering quiz.
>
>
> Those examples are pretty foot bridges, using
> a crew and poured foundations and notably
> without load specs. Bob's conditions are a
> solitary builder building a bridge to support
> vehicular weight with minimum cost in an fairly
> inaccessible location.

They are pretty, aren't they? With the same 2x6 construction some of
those bridges had 50' spans. I'm relatively certain that Bob can
calculate his own loads and design his own bridge. I don't know too
many AHJ that would give load grief to a PE designing a bridge on his
own property. I can't imagine a less exposed position for any plan
examiner. Stamp, stamp, stamp, next! As far as Bob being solitary, I
thought he was building a commune on the far shore with some of his bar
buddies.

> I wouldn't like the idea of driving a tractor up
> a slippery ramp over a fast moving stream.
> " Mr. insurance agent, I'm soaking wet and my
> tractor is under 8' of water, can I have $10,000
> to replace it?"

PT 1x cleats screwed to the deck surface - similar to that used on
ramps in dock construction. There needn't be an inclined surface,
although I would build some in for several reasons.

>
> Regards
> Ken

Right back at ya, big guy!

R

Don

2006-10-01, 9:25 am

"RicodJour"> wrote
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> No need. I pick up enough of it. Pressure treating can come close to
> doubling the weight of the board. Being pumped full of juices it'll
> shrink a lot which isn't a problem unless you have a really wide board.
> ;)

I'll be running my bottom plates through the table saw to remove that
additional 1/4" of width that can be a little problematic with the interior
sheathing.
I didn't do that on the last house and the drywall bowed out which then
became an issue when installing the baseboard.

Ken S. Tucker

2006-10-01, 1:25 pm

RicodJour wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> No need. I pick up enough of it. Pressure treating can come close to
> doubling the weight of the board. Being pumped full of juices it'll
> shrink a lot which isn't a problem unless you have a really wide board.
> ;)
> http://www.treatedwood.com/products/generalfaq.html#3
>
> {The Dude wrote}
>
> I assume that the trees in question are in a good position to fell
> across, and the tractor can be used to drag them around if necessary
> (at least on the one side). Lose the limbs add some scrap plywood, and
> there's your footbridge.

Ok, but how do you get rid of the "footbridge"?
Sounds messy to leave it rot, and chainsawing
it isn't fun, then carrying that out.

> If the bed pretty much dries up after August I suppose scaffolding
> sections could be set up with some planks. That would be about as much
> work as the tree footbridge thing, and if it was directly under the
> permanent bridge location it would be far more useful. It'd save a lot
> of time and effort instead of climbing up and down ladders carrying
> things.

Sure, Bob described the bridge bottom to be 8-10'
above the creek bed which is dry now. So once
His 20' 2x16's are in, the cross bracing goes in,
via ladder or scaffold, btw have you seen that
"little giant" ladder on infomercials? looks neat.

> I had images of a Bob-buchet being employed for transportation of
> personnel. http://www.answers.com/topic/trebuchet-jpg

Trippy man, getting high without drugs.

>
> The effect on the environment isn't limited to in situ leaching, but I
> agree it's low on the scale of environmental atrocities, at least at
> Villa di Bob.

We use gloves when handling it, and stay up-wind
when cutting it, and a breathing mask.

>
> They are pretty, aren't they? With the same 2x6 construction some of
> those bridges had 50' spans. I'm relatively certain that Bob can
> calculate his own loads and design his own bridge.

A design/engineering problem I see with that type
of apparently "catenary" bridge is asymmetrical
loading. Driving a 2500# load onto one side would
be a detailed computation, at every bolt and joint,
ugh.

> I don't know too
> many AHJ that would give load grief to a PE designing a bridge on his
> own property. I can't imagine a less exposed position for any plan
> examiner. Stamp, stamp, stamp, next! As far as Bob being solitary, I
> thought he was building a commune on the far shore with some of his bar
> buddies.

If He was building a commune he won't need a bridge,
they'd just levitate across. I use to pole-vault, I'd love
to try a 20' bed, ha probably end up braking something
I need.

>
> PT 1x cleats screwed to the deck surface - similar to that used on
> ramps in dock construction. There needn't be an inclined surface,
> although I would build some in for several reasons.
> Right back at ya, big guy!
> R

Same
Ken

Ken S. Tucker

2006-10-01, 1:25 pm

Don wrote:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
> I'll be running my bottom plates through the table saw to remove that
> additional 1/4" of width that can be a little problematic with the interior
> sheathing.
> I didn't do that on the last house and the drywall bowed out which then
> became an issue when installing the baseboard.

UGH, nearly 120', why? Is the base plate wider?
Ken

Kris Krieger

2006-10-01, 1:25 pm

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1159558820.463381.99950@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:

>
> Kris Krieger wrote:
there[color=darkred]
>
> What really impressed me when I was a little kid
> was how strong "corrugated cardboard" was per
> it's weight, it's amazing! If you look carefully, it's
> a sequence of box beams. If Mr. Morrison could
> screw and glue plywood to the underside of his
> spanner beams the strength increases big time.
> I did that in a floor in my old work shop and it
> works.
> It's rather like birds and dinosaurs having hollow
> bones, even evolution favors that design, neat ay.
> Placing a couple of tons mid-span on his bridge
> is not really a big problem, it's all engineered and
> tabulated, it's a matter of choosing the method of
> support vs the enviroment.
> Ken
>
>

Yup, ineresting stuff. The wonders of physics.
Wish I culd do math - ah, the plans I could do up <G!!> OTOH, I already
have far, *far* more ideas, than time (or $$ <L!> ) to ever do 'em, so
maybe it's a blessing in disguise ;)

Meanwhile, I'm just thinking of doing a footbridge. We have a swale in
the yard that gets pretty swampy after heavy or prolonged rain (just the
nature of clay soil), which I'm considering lining, in the back yard at
least, with landscape fabric and colored beach pebbles/river rocks
(green and white and blue-grey and like that), with a little footbridge
over it all. Front yard is tiny, so no room, plus I am more interested
in the back, since I "live' there so to speak.

SO I've bene checking out that "bridges" link, with the free bridge
plans and so on.

Hopefully, Bob will post some pics of his eventual solution

RicodJour

2006-10-01, 5:25 pm

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Don wrote:
>
> UGH, nearly 120', why? Is the base plate wider?

Treated wood has larger dimensions than untreated lumber due to all of
the excess moisture pumped into the wood. It would eventually shrink
down to the same size, but it can present some minor problems when
mixing the two woods.

R

Don

2006-10-02, 9:25 am

"Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> UGH, nearly 120', why? Is the base plate wider?

Cause I'm an anal retentive perfectionist? heh
Thanks to you mentioning the weight of the walls awhile back I'll be
building the walls in 12' pieces and connecting them with properly spaced
16' top plates.
So I'll be running 12' PT bottom plates through the table saw.
Yeah it'll be a little bit of a pain, but not too bad I hope.
Don't know if I mentioned it but the mason fell ill last wed. so everything
is on hold temporarily.
I'm hoping they'll show up this morning.
I'm gonna cal them in about an hour and see whats up.
The temps are dropping around here and I need to get this shell done.

Bob Morrison

2006-10-02, 1:25 pm

In a previous post RicodJour wrote...
>
> I thought you were from the granola coast, Bob. PT and creosote over
> that virgin stream? Have you considered greener alternatives? PT isn't
> green just because it's green.
>
>

The "environmental damage" from creosote and other PT lumber is overblown.
Ever see a wood pile that has been in saltwater more than a few years.
The marine borers (teredos, wood worms, etc.) don't seem to mind the
creosote all that much. Besides, most of what I want to use has already
been exposed to the weather and has already leached out whatever it is
going to leach.

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

Ken S. Tucker

2006-10-02, 1:25 pm

Don wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
>
> Cause I'm an anal retentive perfectionist? heh
> Thanks to you mentioning the weight of the walls awhile back I'll be
> building the walls in 12' pieces and connecting them with properly spaced
> 16' top plates.
> So I'll be running 12' PT bottom plates through the table saw.
> Yeah it'll be a little bit of a pain, but not too bad I hope.

That's A job boss, you'll be making a lot of
PT saw dust, carpenter's are pretty careful
with that stuff, maybe ask a good pro about it,
anyway, I'd wear overhauls, good eye protection,
and breathing mask. Shop vac up the shit with
a long hose, and then strip the clothes off and
then shower. Shake the clothes down-wind.
The end-cut of PT is "supposed" to be treated
with some green or black gunk but I suppose
if your plate cut side is facing into the building,
you may be able to skip that.
Sawing is fun, it's the dust that sucks.

> Don't know if I mentioned it but the mason fell ill last wed. so everything
> is on hold temporarily.
> I'm hoping they'll show up this morning.
> I'm gonna cal them in about an hour and see whats up.
> The temps are dropping around here and I need to get this shell done.

We've been ultra-lucky, the last few weeks have
been perfect, and next week looks the same :-).
(Putting on a back porch in the next few days).

Noticed the weather's been a bit wet in Indiana,
maybe the moles are surfacing cuz of that.
Best of luck and cheers!
Ken

Ken S. Tucker

2006-10-02, 1:25 pm

Kris Krieger wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
> news:1159558820.463381.99950@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
>
> there
>
> Yup, ineresting stuff. The wonders of physics.
> Wish I culd do math - ah, the plans I could do up <G!!> OTOH, I already
> have far, *far* more ideas, than time (or $$ <L!> ) to ever do 'em, so
> maybe it's a blessing in disguise ;)

Kris, knowing your interest in trees and stuff,
I can share something I find very impressive about
wood. When a tree is bent by wind the stretching
force on the windward side equals the compressing
force on the other side. The neat thing about wood
is that it's compression strength and it's *tensile*
(stretching) strength evolved to be fairly equal, I
think that cool, and humbling. You can learn a lot
about engineering and it's physics just studying
trees in a breeze.

> Meanwhile, I'm just thinking of doing a footbridge. We have a swale in
> the yard that gets pretty swampy after heavy or prolonged rain (just the
> nature of clay soil), which I'm considering lining, in the back yard at
> least, with landscape fabric and colored beach pebbles/river rocks
> (green and white and blue-grey and like that), with a little footbridge
> over it all. Front yard is tiny, so no room, plus I am more interested
> in the back, since I "live' there so to speak.
>
> SO I've bene checking out that "bridges" link, with the free bridge
> plans and so on.

Guys who post to this group could help too.

> Hopefully, Bob will post some pics of his eventual solution

!

Yup:-).
Ken

Kris Krieger

2006-10-03, 1:25 pm

Bob Morrison <SpamFighter@junk.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1f8ac18b5ae3f550989c33@news.west.earthlink.net:

> In a previous post RicodJour wrote...
>
> The "environmental damage" from creosote and other PT lumber is
> overblown. Ever see a wood pile that has been in saltwater more than
> a few years. The marine borers (teredos, wood worms, etc.) don't seem
> to mind the creosote all that much. Besides, most of what I want to
> use has already been exposed to the weather and has already leached
> out whatever it is going to leach.
>

I seem to recall that the problem with at least some treated lumber was
its mercury content (I of course might be remembering that incorrectly!)
that was claimed to be causing problems with children's health when used
for constructing outdoor play equipment.

I often wonder about mercury itself, because I don't know the form in
which it occurs naturally, how much natural leeching might occur, and so
on. Questions: Is there enough in treated lumber to cause
environmental damage? Enough to cause health problems in children? Or
is it being used largely as a scapegoat? Or.....??

((IOW I just do not know the scientific info.))

Creosote is - I'd thought, anyway - a plant derivative (from the
creosote shrub found in the desert). I seem to recall <insert usual
disclaimer> that there are Marine microorganisms that can chew up that
class of materials, same with petroleum by-products, but I haven't
personally heard of non-marine microorganisms that can do the same
<again, insert disclaimer>, which is part of what makes it last a long
time. But again, is creosoted lumber more "environmentally damaging"
than a creosote shrub...?

Just wondering.

Kris Krieger

2006-10-03, 1:25 pm

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1159810272.504661.173760@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Kris Krieger wrote:
[snip][color=darkred]
already[color=darkred]
>
> Kris, knowing your interest in trees and stuff,
> I can share something I find very impressive about
> wood. When a tree is bent by wind the stretching
> force on the windward side equals the compressing
> force on the other side. The neat thing about wood
> is that it's compression strength and it's *tensile*
> (stretching) strength evolved to be fairly equal, I
> think that cool, and humbling. You can learn a lot
> about engineering and it's physics just studying
> trees in a breeze.

This gets into the philosophy of science ;) Ultimately, *all* science
starts out by observing a natural phemnomenon, relaizing ti is
incredibly cool, asking how/why it ocurs - and then designing
experiments to test/inquire into possible reasons. ((This is opposed to
belief, which can take one look at a phemomenon, decide it's caused by
evil spirits, dryads, ondines, or the like, and then reject any
info/data/evidence showing otherwise.))

IOW, the foundation of all science and engineering is, in a sense,
"natural".

Even metallurgy deals with "natural" materials - iron, for example, is
natural, it's merely been separated from the rock matrix in which it was
formed/found.

Anyway, trees (and grasses - let's not forget bamboo!) are fascinating
bits of engineering. Especially considering that they're created by
living things from littel more than carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, with
soem other trace elements thrown in here and there. That is part of the
fascination about Botany - well, IMO at least <g!> I just received a
book I'd orderd, "Encyclopedia of Cultivated Palms", and even such
relatively "primitive" plants exhibit an astounding variety of shapes,
habits, colors, and so on, using the same basic elements.

This is why, to me, nature is never boring - most people seem to have
been partially blinded, deafened, "de-olifactored", "de-taste-budded",
and just generally de-sensitized to the point where the most simplistic
shapes, colors, and so on, satisfy them. Nature is *subtle*, in many
cases, but infinitely variable, and continually posing questions, while
simultaneously offering answers to other questions.

That's part of why I don't automatically turn my nose up at "archaeo-
technology" to crow triumphantly about the modern world ((which, let's
face it, only exists because a small percentage of exceptional and
creative people have gone to great lengths to design, and see to the
manufacture of, useful things that can be used pretty much by chimps)).
"Archaeotechnology" (I put it in quotes because I don't know whether
it's a "real" word - it's just one that I use <g!> ) had to work with raw
materials, as opposed to refined materials such as modern steel, in ways
that were creative and intuitive, as opposed to using math that jsut
about requires the use of computers. It's "crude" by comparison, but
that judgement overlooks the ingenuity as well as the ability that a
reare few individuals had/have to look at nature and grasp various
fundamental principles in a way that allows then to apply natural
systems in completely new ways.

Plants are, in and of themselves, impressive exmaples of "engineering"
in a sense, but also, it takes a creative mind (and intelligence) to
effectively adapt botanical, and other natural, materials to various
purposes. That sort of *creative* (important emphasis) intelligence
would be able to function well regardless of the level of technology.

Well, I could take that thought invarious directions, but I shouldn't go
on and on and on <g!> Just that, in a way, science is nature and nature
is science, and I don't comprehend hwo anyone could *not* be fascianted
by it all ;) .

>
in[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
at[color=darkred]
footbridge[color=darkred]
interested[color=darkred]
>
> Guys who post to this group could help too.

Well, I'm just looking at very modest things ;) It's only a suburban
lot

, had to pay a premium just to get 10,500 sq ft ... typical lots
are more like, 5000 to *maybe* 7000 sq ft. So it's not anything that;'d
require much engineering.

I know - I could just go and buy a pre-built mini-arch "bridgelet", but
where's the fun in that :p !! The best part of this stuff is figuring
out how to do it. Second best part is saving the $$ ;) .
((Everyone sez I'd be truely and seriously *dangerous* if I could do
non-geometric math heh heh heh ;) ))

>
>
> Yup:-).
> Ken
>
>

Ken S. Tucker

2006-10-03, 1:25 pm

Kris Krieger wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
> news:1159810272.504661.173760@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> [snip]
> already
>
> This gets into the philosophy of science ;) Ultimately, *all* science
> starts out by observing a natural phemnomenon, relaizing ti is
> incredibly cool, asking how/why it ocurs - and then designing
> experiments to test/inquire into possible reasons. ((This is opposed to
> belief, which can take one look at a phemomenon, decide it's caused by
> evil spirits, dryads, ondines, or the like, and then reject any
> info/data/evidence showing otherwise.))
>
> IOW, the foundation of all science and engineering is, in a sense,
> "natural".

Kris:
" Even metallurgy deals with "natural" materials - iron, for example,
is
natural, it's merely been separated from the rock matrix in which it
was
formed/found."

I imagine a genius in our distant past, following the
invention of fire, who decided to *cook rocks*, I'd
figure his/her friends might think of him as a weird,
but it's fun to imagine the beginnings of metallurgy.
Some puddle of something is found solidified at the
bottom of the fire-pit the next day, we should make
a movie about that.

> Anyway, trees (and grasses - let's not forget bamboo!) are fascinating
> bits of engineering. Especially considering that they're created by
> living things from littel more than carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, with
> soem other trace elements thrown in here and there. That is part of the
> fascination about Botany - well, IMO at least <g!> I just received a
> book I'd orderd, "Encyclopedia of Cultivated Palms", and even such
> relatively "primitive" plants exhibit an astounding variety of shapes,
> habits, colors, and so on, using the same basic elements.
>
> This is why, to me, nature is never boring - most people seem to have
> been partially blinded, deafened, "de-olifactored", "de-taste-budded",
> and just generally de-sensitized to the point where the most simplistic
> shapes, colors, and so on, satisfy them. Nature is *subtle*, in many
> cases, but infinitely variable, and continually posing questions, while
> simultaneously offering answers to other questions.

The larger problem is how people are blinded by
religion and diety worship to come together with
a common respect for the ultimate power of nature.

> That's part of why I don't automatically turn my nose up at "archaeo-
> technology" to crow triumphantly about the modern world ((which, let's
> face it, only exists because a small percentage of exceptional and
> creative people have gone to great lengths to design, and see to the
> manufacture of, useful things that can be used pretty much by chimps)).
> "Archaeotechnology" (I put it in quotes because I don't know whether
> it's a "real" word - it's just one that I use <g!> ) had to work with raw
> materials, as opposed to refined materials such as modern steel, in ways
> that were creative and intuitive, as opposed to using math that jsut
> about requires the use of computers. It's "crude" by comparison, but
> that judgement overlooks the ingenuity as well as the ability that a
> reare few individuals had/have to look at nature and grasp various
> fundamental principles in a way that allows then to apply natural
> systems in completely new ways.

Sure, "archaeotechnology" began with the arch,
sounds good to me!
>
> Plants are, in and of themselves, impressive exmaples of "engineering"
> in a sense, but also, it takes a creative mind (and intelligence) to
> effectively adapt botanical, and other natural, materials to various
> purposes. That sort of *creative* (important emphasis) intelligence
> would be able to function well regardless of the level of technology.
>
>
> Well, I could take that thought invarious directions, but I shouldn't go
> on and on and on <g!> Just that, in a way, science is nature and nature
> is science, and I don't comprehend hwo anyone could *not* be fascianted
> by it all ;) .

Agreed, but I think most people are fascinated,
but again, it takes time.

> in
> the
> at
> footbridge
> interested
>
> Well, I'm just looking at very modest things ;) It's only a suburban
> lot

, had to pay a premium just to get 10,500 sq ft ... typical lots
> are more like, 5000 to *maybe* 7000 sq ft. So it's not anything that;'d
> require much engineering.
>
> I know - I could just go and buy a pre-built mini-arch "bridgelet", but
> where's the fun in that :p !! The best part of this stuff is figuring
> out how to do it. Second best part is saving the $$ ;) .
> ((Everyone sez I'd be truely and seriously *dangerous* if I could do
> non-geometric math heh heh heh ;) ))

Nice project to cut your teeth on :-).
Ken

Kris Krieger

2006-10-03, 5:25 pm

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1159895727.915065.127410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Kris Krieger wrote:
[snip][color=darkred]
so[color=darkred]
science[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
by[color=darkred]
>
> Kris:
> " Even metallurgy deals with "natural" materials - iron, for example,
> is
> natural, it's merely been separated from the rock matrix in which it
> was
> formed/found."
>
> I imagine a genius in our distant past, following the
> invention of fire, who decided to *cook rocks*, I'd
> figure his/her friends might think of him as a weird,
> but it's fun to imagine the beginnings of metallurgy.
> Some puddle of something is found solidified at the
> bottom of the fire-pit the next day, we should make
> a movie about that.

What probably happened, tho', is that some rocks placed around a fire
(for containment and to rediate absorbed heat as the fire dies down) had
some metal melt out fom them.

THe interesting thing about discovery is that it isn't the observation
that's important - it's the creative individual's perception of, and
thought about, the observation.

Looking through the history of science and technology, a constant thread
is that large numbers of people had observed the initial phenomena - but
it took one creative individual who didn't merely look, but in a sense,
*saw*: saw the potential, saw the similarities and/or connections
between the given natural situation, and some other unrelated situation,
made the mental leap from "oooh, shiny stuff in fire pit. pretty...",
to "gee, that shiny stuff is hard and the edges are *sharp* - HEY!!, I
wonder what'd happen if I got more of those rocks, put them in the fire,
melted that hard stuff out, and poured it into a hole shaped like a
spear-head...".

A normal/average/mundane type of person sees sticks and paper; 10,000 of
them will also see exactly that, and nothing more - prob. all will say,
Ugh, trash, get that crap outta my way.

OTOH it only takes one creative person to look at the same things, and
sees a lamp, a glider, a room divider, a window covering, a box for
storing lightweight things or even some dried grain, and a passel of
other useful and/or beautiful things. Add high intelligence to that
creativity, and you get even more.

fascinating[color=darkred]
with[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
shapes,[color=darkred]
budded",[color=darkred]
simplistic[color=darkred]
while[color=darkred]
>
> The larger problem is how people are blinded by
> religion and diety worship to come together with
> a common respect for the ultimate power of nature.

Oh boy, you do *not* want to get me started on that one, yikes =8-O !!!

I could write a book. Heck, if all the things I've written to date
about that topic were collected, it *would* be a book, and with about
1500 pages at that <LOL!>

((Ironically, I think that *spirituality* is an important part of human
Being, but religion and spirituality are most definitely not
identical/equivalent and neither is a prerequisite for the other. But
that's not related to the fascinating engineering that living creatures,
as well as inanimate things ;) , have developed over the millenia...))

let's[color=darkred]
chimps)).[color=darkred]
raw[color=darkred]
ways[color=darkred]
>
> Sure, "archaeotechnology" began with the arch,
> sounds good to me!

I'll hve tot ry to remember to check the etymology - not sure whether
there is a correlation between "arch" as related to the shape; "arch" as
related to constructing something; and "archaeo-" as in "old; from
ancient times".....

But "Arch-" works, in any event ;)

fascianted[color=darkred]
>
> Agreed, but I think most people are fascinated,
> but again, it takes time.

Most, well, I'm not at all sure about that, based upon what I've seen.
OTOH it also seems to me that most people are *born* curious and
inventive, and pertty much "turn stupid" when they hit puberty -
combination of hormones and the public carcass-parking function os so
many so-called "schools". But again, totally differnt topic so I'll
show some self-control =:-o and not go three <g!>

More than a few, I'd agree with, tho' ;)

>
swale[color=darkred]
(just[color=darkred]
yard[color=darkred]
bridge[color=darkred]
lots[color=darkred]
that;'d[color=darkred]
but[color=darkred]
figuring[color=darkred]
>
> Nice project to cut your teeth on :-).
> Ken
>

True - tho' I'm sure I'll be cutting lots of other parts <LOL!> ((Hey,
I never said I'm *coordinated*!)) But it's always something different
with me. For all I know, I'll end up taking that welding/metalworking
lueisure-learning course and end up making it out of steel, or something
even weirder ;) . So not sure it's a matter of cutting teeth as per the
saying. It's one more in a group of projects that I'm either planning
or working on, including but not limited to:

(1) garden (includes more reading about plants, *also* includes making
up more 3D plant models to stick in front of my 3D house model I did up
to see how the stuff looks, and then the actualy diggins =:-p...)
(2A) the above also *also* requires submitting plan to the HOA (a big
annoyance - they sent us a liteer because some puts bitched that we
didn't set up a lwan service immediately, but meanwhile, I get to look
at the lazyass neighbor's trash cans and piled-up trash bags *all the
time* =>:-p - so meanwhile, I'm supposed to have them approve what I do
in my yard to keep the neighborhood "coherent" or some such
crap...yeesh...but I guess that's a differnt saga...)
(2) design and make window coverings and, it seems, make or adapt the
requisite hardware (getting tired of looking at the cheesy "faux wood"
blinds - yeesh, why don't they just call 'em "plastic" or "vinyl", since
that's what they are - not that the wood ones look any darn differnet,
but that's beside the point...)
(3) design & make concrete or concrete'n'stone small fountain
(3A) find and adapt, or learn to make, solar fountain pump ((I've just
seen the whole 'solar fountains' for sale, don't like any of 'em,
haven't yet found just the solar pumps for sale...)
(4) Figure out the latest bit of JavaScript - I'm trying to write a
specific type of webpage navigationsl widget
(5) finish other contents for webpage rewrite (will it ever end...?)
(6) get and install weatherstripping on front door and attic access
hatch (also put some insulation in the latter...) and do other house-
related things (replace porch light fixture with something decent,
replace blubs with outdoor fluorescents, replace backyard spotlights
with outdoor fluorescents, plus some other stuff)
(7) calculate how much I'll need in the way of rocks, stones, soil, etc.
for the yard plans and then calucualte estimated costs
(8) finish unpacking and organizing (I get distracted so, no, it's not
all done yet =:-( )
(9) other miscellanious stuff - including the little footbridge ;) and
getting ym rear in gear to sign up for some of those "leisure courses"
(I want to take a stained-glass refresher, as well as take the welding
and metallurgy ones...heh, maybe even try some pottery, since I don't
like much of what I see for sale, well not that I can reasonably afford
at least <g!>...and I've been thinking ti'd be nice to actually have a
pair of matching lamps after all these years <LOL!> )
(10) oh yeah, and figure out how to unwrap a 3D mesh and turn it into a
2D printout - I'm trying to figure out how to model in "real life"
something I modeled in 3D, a curving vase-sort-of-thing

There are other odds'n'ends Most has to be done when I'm feeling OK
and/or I'm reasonablty mobile =:-o Being awake helps but is not a
prerequisite <g!>

Anyway, so there is a lot of tooth-cutting goes on around here <g!> But
no large projects like Don's - no room/place. Just all small stuff,
tho' that suits my personality better anyway ;)

Bob Morrison

2006-10-03, 5:25 pm

In a previous post Kris Krieger wrote...
> Creosote is - I'd thought, anyway - a plant derivative (from the
> creosote shrub found in the desert)
>

Creosote is derived from petroleum.

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

Ken S. Tucker

2006-10-04, 3:25 am

Kris Krieger wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
> news:1159895727.915065.127410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> [snip]
> so
> science
> to
> by
>
> What probably happened, tho', is that some rocks placed around a fire
> (for containment and to rediate absorbed heat as the fire dies down) had
> some metal melt out fom them.
>
> THe interesting thing about discovery is that it isn't the observation
> that's important - it's the creative individual's perception of, and
> thought about, the observation.

In public school, I was very impressed by E=mc^2
explaining why the sun shines for billions of years,
so I was sold on the idea of the theory of relativity.
>From melted rocks to nuclear power...
Ken
PS: Read your full post carefully...

Kris Krieger

2006-10-04, 1:25 pm

Bob Morrison <SpamFighter@junk.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1f8c7348743e9e59989c38@news.west.earthlink.net:

> In a previous post Kris Krieger wrote...
>
> Creosote is derived from petroleum.
>

Oh, OK -- I'll have to refresh my memory about the creosote bush ;)

Kris Krieger

2006-10-04, 1:25 pm

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1159939933.301791.161160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

>
> Kris Krieger wrote:
[...]
>
> In public school, I was very impressed by E=mc^2
> explaining why the sun shines for billions of years,

Heh, where I went to school, that was waaaay too advanced =:-p I read
about the sun outside of school (an activity which always infuriated
most of the "teachers"). But what I read was fascinating. Re: math
formulae, in later years, I finally realized that math formulae were
actually shorthand for observable and theoretical phemomena (obviously
not a strong point, math). And that also fascinated me.

The thing I couldn't quite figure out, tho' was the Einstein/Bohrs
debate. I often wondered whether their debate was less over the nature
of reality, than it was over the mathematics used to symbolize various
aspects of that reality. IOW, something like talking about the color of
clouds - most people will say, white, but an artist will say, white and
grey and some blue and so yellow and...(etc.), and a physicist might
say, no color, wator vapor is colorless and what you're seeing is not an
inherent color but refracted/refelcted light. And so on.

String theory also confuses me in that way. Are "strings" what make up
subatomic particles, or are the "strings" mathematical artifacts arising
from the method chosen to describe a certain phenomenon?

Anyhoo, I digress...

> so I was sold on the idea of the theory of relativity.
>From melted rocks to nuclear power...
> Ken
> PS: Read your full post carefully...
>

Oy vey, do I have to.......? Pls just tell me outright what I said
that was wrong or sounded stupid, OK?, because I already write and
rewrite and rerewrite and rerererewrite and so on, and the thought
ofgoind back and *again* going through stuff to re(*n+1)write is not
at all an enticing prospect to me... =:-(

RicodJour

2006-10-04, 1:25 pm

Bob Morrison wrote:
> In a previous post Kris Krieger wrote...
>
> Creosote is derived from petroleum.

There are a number of products that are commonly called creosote. The
material used in treating pilings is derived from coal tar. Petroleum
is the naturally occurring liquid. I'm not aware of any wood
treatments that use petroleum . Most all use the less valuable
by-products of other processes.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts85.html

Cancer of the scrotum in chimney sweeps...some things I'd rather not
know!

R

Ken S. Tucker

2006-10-04, 1:25 pm

Kris Krieger wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
> news:1159939933.301791.161160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
> [...]
>
> Heh, where I went to school, that was waaaay too advanced =:-p I read
> about the sun outside of school (an activity which always infuriated
> most of the "teachers"). But what I read was fascinating. Re: math
> formulae, in later years, I finally realized that math formulae were
> actually shorthand for observable and theoretical phemomena (obviously
> not a strong point, math). And that also fascinated me.

I was an amateur astronomer, so reading pop
articles on relativity was easy enough, not much
math. In HS I got into the math, vectors, tensors,
stuff like that which really makes engineering
easier to understand.

> The thing I couldn't quite figure out, tho' was the Einstein/Bohrs
> debate. I often wondered whether their debate was less over the nature
> of reality, than it was over the mathematics used to symbolize various
> aspects of that reality.

Yes, that debate continues.

> IOW, something like talking about the color of
> clouds - most people will say, white, but an artist will say, white and
> grey and some blue and so yellow and...(etc.), and a physicist might
> say, no color, wator vapor is colorless and what you're seeing is not an
> inherent color but refracted/refelcted light. And so on.
>
> String theory also confuses me in that way. Are "strings" what make up
> subatomic particles, or are the "strings" mathematical artifacts arising
> from the method chosen to describe a certain phenomenon?

The intent of math, especially relativity, is to eliminate
subjectivity, by making everyone's Point of View equally
valid, and subject to the same Physical Laws.

>
> Oy vey, do I have to.......? Pls just tell me outright what I said
> that was wrong or sounded stupid, OK?,

I meant that I read your entire post/essay
carefully and find it agreeable enuff.
Ken

RicodJour

2006-10-04, 5:25 pm

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> I meant that I read your entire post/essay
> carefully and find it agreeable enuff.

I had to read the "read" twice when you first posted that. I knew
there'd be some clarification.

Polish Polish German Silver. Language never did make sense...

R

Ken S. Tucker

2006-10-04, 5:25 pm

RicodJour wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> I had to read the "read" twice when you first posted that. I knew
> there'd be some clarification.

I should have wrought, "I red yar post carfully"

> Polish Polish German Silver. Language never did make sense...
> R

Kris Krieger

2006-10-05, 5:25 pm

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1159984901.919691.215180@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

>
> Kris Krieger wrote:
read[color=darkred]
(obviously[color=darkred]
>
> I was an amateur astronomer, so reading pop
> articles on relativity was easy enough, not much
> math. In HS I got into the math, vectors, tensors,
> stuff like that which really makes engineering
> easier to understand.

Cool.

Not much astronomy among the streetlights, unfortunately. But three
were lots of little critters, even in something as simple as an unkempt
lawn (these days they say "Organic - 100% chemical free!" <LOL!> ).
Once, I even got to see a male Scarlet Tanager - I was just a kid, was
paddling around in the small above-ground pool that my dad put up for a
few summers, and coming up for air, I saw it sitting on the fence. Holy
moly, what a beautiful creature! And, given that all higher elements
are created I the hearts of stars - well, in a sense, you can say that
the stars really are all around us

Math - I could only do the parts I could visualize. Didn't help too
much with Calculus, because I didn't have points of visual reference for
it. Too bad, because math is such an efficient and often beautiful way
of representing phenomena. There have bee times when I've seen someone
doing it, and explaining as they go, where it was IMO very much like the
expereince of elaborate music. But do it muself? Nope. OTOH, i also
have to day not been capable of writing a symphony, either, so there you
go, I guess ;)

But sometimes, there seems to be a "sense" of it in things. OTOH I'm
not sure whether a non-math brain like mine senses the math, or the fact
that there is order and relationship between things - or maybe it's that
a math-brain looks at order/relationship in math terms, or so to speak,
"senses" the visual and/or structural order within the math.

But I guess that's going so far afield that it's climbed over the fence
and headed down the road already <g!>

>
nature[color=darkred]
various[color=darkred]
>
> Yes, that debate continues.

It seems to me, tho' that it's a debate over the wrong things - IOW,
perception. I've heard it said that quantum physics and relativity are
based upon differing theories about (i.e. perceptions of) the nature of
the universe. But it seems to me that both, and neither, must be true,
*because* they are perception/theory.

It's sort-of how I used to not understand how people couldn't understand
my metaphor of "the full moon unfolding like a rose" - until i realized
that I have a mostly-vertical astigmatism in one eye and a mostly
horizontal one in the other eye, so the full moon looks, to me, like it
has 4 petals, whereas someone with normal vision sees a bright, sharply-
edged circle. So three are definitely portions of my poetic (well,
*attempted* poetic <g!> ) imagery that make Zero sense to someone who not
only perceives things differntly, but physically *sees* them differntly.

OK, so going from there, if I have a type of brain structure and/or
function that perceive the universe as being representable by a certain
kind of visual-spatial order, but someone else with a different sort of
brain structure/function perceives it as being random and without order,
both perceptions are right AND both perceptions are wrong - or to be
more precise, both have a certain degree of predictiveness.

Now, going from there, assuming that both I and this other person are
able to translate our perceptions into mathematical formulae, and then
argue because the two sets of formulae are not in agreement, well, isn't
the argument itself a bit absurd?

The fact, IOW, is that relativity is predictive for certain phemomena,
and quantum theory si rpedictive for other phenomena, and good old
Newtonian physics is predictive for most phenomena we expereince. So
the issue is *not*, IMO who is "right" or "wrong" - the terms are
irrelvant. OTOH, a useful discussion would be more along the lines of,
where do the theories converge and where do they digress; where are they
predictive, where are they not predictive. And then trying to see
whetehr there is anything that can express those areas of predictiveness
and non-predictiveness.

It's something like discussing and analysing where/how air behaves like
a gas, and where/how it behaves like a fluid. Or more to the point,
where/how light behaves as a wave, and where/how as a a series of
particles. It's ridiculous, and a waste of time, to say "light is
awave', when it also can be proven to behave like a particle stream.
And visa-versa.

So, IMO, it's very weird that there are still epople debating over "who
was right" with Einstein and Bohr. Obviously, they bother were right.
And they both were wrong. That is a given. And the only fruitful
discussion would be, What can account for both being at once correct,
and incorrect.

OTOH, a great deal, and I'd have to say most, of what people argue
about, is to me, like arguing apples and oranges. It's patently obvious
that an apple is not an orange, and an orange is not an apple. But both
are fruit.

Same with "arguments" that try to divide science from art. The
perspectives/points-of-perception are differnt, but the impetus is the
same and even some of the fundamental theory of method is not all that
much differnt: observe, experiment, and predict - and if prediction
fails, start over. Once predictiveness for one thing is established,
text extensions of the theory - IOW, perform a directed search for
facts.

Fact: if you layer a low-oil paint over a high-oil paint, the upper
layer will crack - so, if you're painting a still life using "oil
paint" (pigment suspended in linseed oil), there are some pigments you
cannot use to glaze over others, unless crackling is what you *want*.
Similarly, if you're painting with acrylic-based paints, you *always*
use distilled water, because the comtaminents in most tapwater will
cause cracking and disintegrationof the acrylic film.

Fact: The sun rises in the east, which has been shown to be due to the
additional fact that the earth rotates in a given direction. Fact:
hydrofluoric acid eats through glass, so it cannot be stored in a glass
jar - although it's OTOH great if you need to etch/"frost" glass. Fact:
given the acceleration due to gravity, a penny dropped form the top of
the Empire State Building will probably be lethal if it hits a person
(the prediction therre is sufficient - experiements are not considered
necessary to prove that one).

And so on. Art and science (and for that matter, spirituality - tho'
religion is a different kettle of fish) are rooted in human curiosity.
One can delineate the ways in which they are different, and the ways in
which they are similar. Curiosity, observation, theorizing.

And that applies to architecture, of course. Is archetecture art/
Sceince? A medium of spirituality? Well, yes, yes, AND yes. It's not
only one thing. Even engineering is not "only about the numbers",
because a work of engineering can be done from different perspectives,
and many problems have more than one solution.

>
and[color=darkred]
an[color=darkred]
up[color=darkred]
arising[color=darkred]
>
> The intent of math, especially relativity, is to eliminate
> subjectivity, by making everyone's Point of View equally
> valid, and subject to the same Physical Laws.

True, and yet, math is still a human endeavor, and as of yet, at least
when it comes to a unified theory of the universe, no one human has been
able to comprehend, and then express mathimatically, the totality of it.

Now, I was trained as a scientist, do don't confuse anything I say as
being in any way a rationalization for people who say stuff like
"dinosaurs can not have existed because they aren't mentioned in the
Bible", or in this or that other spiritual book. I'm very clear on the
delineations between sceince (includes math), art, and spirituality.
What I do say is that they're not alien things to one another, and that
perspective plays a part in all simply because of the nature of the
human mind (and also, the variations between brains/minds).

Bohrs had a perspective, Einstein had a perspective. I'm considering it
obvious that their perspectives were not just fantasies or delusions
snatched out of thin air. Their foundations were very clear, just as
the foundation of any theory (as opposed to speculation, guess, belief)
must, by definition, be clear, or else it is not a theory and not worth
considering in a scientific manner. But even given clear foundations,
perspective and interpretation can differ. It's something like, oh dang
I forgot the word, when two different species, or for that matter, human
cultures!, halfway around the world from each other, arrive at
solutions/forms/methods that are very similar - yet not identical. Or,
conversely, very different solutions to very similar
problems/conditions.

That's how I see the relativity:quantum-physics "debate". The problem
is the same: explain the workings of the universe. But the approaches,
perspectives, etc., were differnt. And both are at once
right/predictive, and wrong/non-predictive. Ergo, both are incomplete.
And that incompleteness renders arguments about "rightness" irrelevant.
The relevant argument, as I see it, is: what fills the gaps, where do
they fit into the larger puzzle. IOW, not arguing whether the left hand
is superior to the right hand, but rather, realizing that each hand is
only a part of a much larger body.

>
>
> I meant that I read your entire post/essay
> carefully and find it agreeable enuff.
> Ken
>

Oh, I got ya! <g!> Geez but I'm dense sometimes =:-o But at least it
keeps me from getting conceited - nothing is quite as humbling as
realizing how much of a doofus one can be <LOL!>

((Heh, as I'm sitting here blithering about relativity versus things
quantum, I have a small green long-tailed parrot climbing all over me
and rather delightedly "decorating" me with little parrot poopchute
pinwheels - hard to get *too* uppity when one's "chain-mail" is just
guano <G!> ))

Kris Krieger

2006-10-05, 5:25 pm

"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in
news:1159986641.249505.120900@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
said[color=darkred]
>
> I had to read the "read" twice when you first posted that. I knew
> there'd be some clarification.
>
> Polish Polish German Silver. Language never did make sense...
>
> R
>

Oh, but it does! See: "Grimm's Law" (linguistics).
<G!>

The main problem is English - it just has so many elements from so many
languages. And has changed over time. Today, we pronounce "here" and
"hear", but how were they pronounced in the past? It's probable that
English made more sense back when pronounciations were different ;)

English grammar is a different matter because it started getting screwy
from pretty much the get-go.

On top of all that, there is the general dumbing-down of it all, which
in the end, only makes for more confusion. And then there is the evil
of phonics <shudder!!!> ......

Kris Krieger

2006-10-05, 5:25 pm

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
news:1159989103.446893.291790@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

>
> RicodJour wrote:
said[color=darkred]
>
> I should have wrought, "I red yar post carfully"
>
>
>

"I had read your post..."
"I'd read..."

Some of those old forms were blessings in disguise <g!>

Evil Writing Example: At the same time, had I read your statement
again, I might have understood it correctly, although I might have not
discerned even than whether you'd intended the word "read" to mean "I
had read", or "You read".

<G!!>

Kris Krieger

2006-10-05, 5:25 pm

"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in
news:1159978288.982430.216790@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

> Bob Morrison wrote:
>
> There are a number of products that are commonly called creosote. The
> material used in treating pilings is derived from coal tar. Petroleum
> is the naturally occurring liquid. I'm not aware of any wood
> treatments that use petroleum . Most all use the less valuable
> by-products of other processes.
>
> http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts85.html
>
> Cancer of the scrotum in chimney sweeps...some things I'd rather not
> know!
>
> R
>
>

That was an interesting article, thanks

THis page has a short blurb re: the shrub versus coal tar:
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ecoph22.htm
((Has a lot fo otehr info that's interesting if one is interested in plant
resins and waxes, which include incense, also carnauba wax, used in car
polish and candies, heh... ))

Then there is this:
http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/creosote.htm
And that is prob way more than you ever cared to know about the creosote
shrub...althought this tidbit from that site is a cute factoid:
"Such an increase in the number of chromosomes in plant evolution is not
that unusual. Seedless watermelons, for example, were the result of
doubling the number of chromosomes of regular watermelons, the lack of
seeds being a side effect."

Ken S. Tucker

2006-10-06, 9:25 am

Kris Krieger wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
> news:1159984901.919691.215180@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
>
> read
> (obviously
>
> Cool.
>
> Not much astronomy among the streetlights, unfortunately. But three
> were lots of little critters, even in something as simple as an unkempt
> lawn (these days they say "Organic - 100% chemical free!" <LOL!> ).
> Once, I even got to see a male Scarlet Tanager - I was just a kid, was
> paddling around in the small above-ground pool that my dad put up for a
> few summers, and coming up for air, I saw it sitting on the fence. Holy
> moly, what a beautiful creature! And, given that all higher elements
> are created I the hearts of stars - well, in a sense, you can say that
> the stars really are all around us

>
> Math - I could only do the parts I could visualize. Didn't help too
> much with Calculus, because I didn't have points of visual reference for
> it. Too bad, because math is such an efficient and often beautiful way
> of representing phenomena. There have bee times when I've seen someone
> doing it, and explaining as they go, where it was IMO very much like the
> expereince of elaborate music. But do it muself? Nope. OTOH, i also
> have to day not been capable of writing a symp