Re: wood species question

Moron,

You really are a pathetic idiot.

Your stupid retorts are pure nonsense and anyone can see right through them.

You have not refuted one single thingI have said.

If it is true that I am giving bad information as you claim, why do you not
challenge my facts, my calculations or my methodology?

And here you are asking for hard facts and figures about my stick example.

I gave all kinds of hard facts and figures in my calculation example. Go to
town with that, moron. Let's see you refute one single thing I have said.

The point of my story about bending the stick was to provide an everyday
example we can all relate to and which illustrate the underlying concept --
how wood can be easily weakened by bending. And how that weakening occurs
through compression failure of wood fibers on the inside radius of the bend.

I think most people see the point and intent of this illustrative example.
So what exactly is your argument with it?

What a complete intelligence-free twerp you are.

And then there are your comments about how you tried to be "nice?" When was
that? When you jumped on my very good-natured posts out of the blue, hurling
insults and spitting unsubstantiated accusations that my information was
"crap."

I guess you don't realize that bushwackers sometimes get a bellyful of lead
for their troubles?

The pot calling the kettle black? What do you think any normal person would
do if some crazy nut suddenly accosted them on the street for no reason
other than overhearing a discussion he didn't like?

The person being attacked would have every legal and moral right to lay that
nut out flat on his back. Which is what I have done, in the verbal sense. I
have every right to do so and will continue to forcefully call your
agressive and sociopathic behaviour what it is, until you modify it to bring
it into conformity with accepted social norms.

You are simply a nut. And I don't care to be nice to nuts that go around
accosting people completely unprovoked.

You don't like it? Too bad. Aggressive nuts that attack people without any
provocation deserve disdainful treatment, at the very least.

Also disdainful is your posturing about being concerned for the safety of
people who might listen to and consider what I'm saying.

That is complete bull***. The reason you are atacking me is that you have
an old axe to grind. I remember you from the Ragwing list where you launched
a similar attack on me out of the blue because I provided some good
information about a very serious structural issue with wing spars.

I actually never responded to you then because you didn't say anything of
substance -- just like now.

When you saw me here, you launched a vicious attack like some crazed
pitbull. that's the reason for your sociopathic display here, not some
concern about people's safety. What a piece of work you are.

Bottom line is you know absolutely nothing about the subject under
discussion, as you have amply proved.

Quick reminder: you have not taken up my challenge to refute any facts I
have presented. You spit out a big long post of nonsense and meaningless
gibberish, but conveniently sidestepped the challenge I issued to you.

That challenege still stands. Either pick up the gauntlet or shut your
stupid obnoxious trap.

That's really the end of the story right there. Until you can actually point
to factual errors on my part, your mindless braying is just noise. Annoying
irritating, mindless noise.

Go bark somewhere else, mouth-foamer.

Regards to All (Except Moron in NC)

Gordon Arnaut
Ontario, Canada.








"Morgans" <jsmorgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5d0De.8924$LC6.5009@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Gordon Arnaut" <goarnaut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
>
>> I'm posting this for the normal people in this group who might thing that
>> this "Morgans" clown actually has some kind of valid point.
>
> OK, I tried nice, but you don't want to play, so first of all, a general,
> FYT.
>
>> His remarks make quite clear that he doesn't know the first thing about
>> structures. Yet he comes out with guns blazing and hurling unprovoked
>> insults. What a clown.
>>
>> For example, take his comment about modulus of rupture not being
>> >relevant
> to stress in compression or tension.
>
> In contex, if you please. Site the usage, please. I can't defend
> something
> I don't see.
>
>> This is complete gibberish that shows he doesn't understand even the
> basics. Modulus of rupture is a measure of a material's strength in
> bending.
>
> Close. That is when it FAILS.
>
>> Bending loads on a piece of wood (or other material) typically produce
>> stress in both compression and tension at the same time.
>
> Oh really? Why that's all new news to this clown. Wow, thanks.
>
>> Take a wood yardstick and hold it by the ends; now try to bend it into a
>> U
>> shape. The wood fibers on the inside of the curve will be in compression,
>> while those on the outside will be in tension, simultaneously.
>>
>> If you apply enough bending moment you can break the stick. But what if
>>you bend it as far as you can without breaking it and then let it go? Have
> you done any damage?
>
> Depends.
>
> Please tell us how you can tell. Give us all a REAL example. Use
> something
> more than modulus of rupture, or buy a vowel.
>
>> It's quite possible tthat you have damaged the wood fibers that were in
>> compression (the top of the stick). Almost certainly you will not have
>> damaged the bottom of the stick, which was under tension.
>
> Really? How do you know? There are ways to know, or don't you know how
> to
> figure that part?
>
>> So while you didn't break the stick, you might have caused compression
>>failure on the side of the stick that was on the inside of the curve.
>>This
>>damage would be most acute on the top surface of the stick and would be
>>progressivly less until the neutral axis (middle) of the stick.
>
>> If you made a saw cut right across the point of bending, you would
>>probably see -- under a magnifying glass -- wood fibers that have failed
> in > compression.
>
> Don't need a magnifying glass, if you know what to look for.
>
>> Idiot's comments about needing 10,000 pounds on top of the wood simply >
> illustrate to everyone what a loudmouth know-nothing he is.
>
> I was talking about a bending force, or can't you read?
>
>> All it takes is enough force to bend the plank more than you would
>>normally do.
>
> Oh, please tell. How about that. How about a number a bit more specific
> than "more than you would normally do." How much is normal? Those
> numbers
> are in there.
>
> > This does not have to be a lot of force.
>
> Once again, something more specific, please, professor? No? Oh well.
> You
> obviously show a lot more book knowledge than real application.
>
> You had damn well better understand how all of the figures for each
> species
> apply to how the specific stick will be used. You know nothing that
> anyone
> here should use to build an airplane.
>
> You said something back there about modulus of rupture being the most
> important. Yes it is important, but far from _all_ that is important.
>
> How about modulus of elasticity? Some woods will not bend much, until
> they
> suddenly rupture. Might want to know that, right? Some woods are very
> poor
> in tension, and splinter at the drop of a hat. Might want to know about
> that, too.
>
> YOU CAN NOT PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT FIGURES YOU WANT TO LOOK AT. YOU MUST
> USE
> THEM ALL, AND UNDERSTAND HOW TO USE THEM ALL.
>
> To say otherwise is to create a death trap, and irresponsible to try to
> convince others, that you don't need to consider the loads that will be
> placed on each individual part.
>
> Most people do not have the skills and understanding to consider all of
> the
> factors involved. It is VERY clear, at least you do not.
>
> YOU are one more fine example of newsgroups "gods" spouting off, and
> giving
> misinformation that could be deadly.
>
> Ever read the government's forrest products book? It's old, but still the
> best of its type. Try it. That is only a start.
>
> By the way, so everyone out there in newsgroup land can best judge how you
> are qualified to pass on all of your useful information, how about posting
> all of your qualifications? Education, degrees, how many wood airframes
> you
> have analyzed, how many you have built and flown? Any or all of those
> things.
>
> Please. Please. Use the Doctor's motto. First do no harm.
>
> You have some un-doing to do.
>
> Don't bother responding to me. You are off my radar; my blood pressure
> can't stand it.
>
> Please, group. Learn more from someone who knows more than him (or me)
> before taking this one's advise.
>
> Jerk. I hate being like this.
> --
> Jim in NC
>


.

Loading