Fact, Fiction, Lies, and Bullshit
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
applied philosophy reading:
--------------------------
I have always been puzzled at the public appetite for bullshit,
without having a clear definition of the term. Bryan Appleyard's
article points us to Mr. Frankfurt, who wrote a treatise of the
nature of what we refer to as BS as opposed to untruth or lies.
The first guy I met who had zero tolerance for bullshit was Harold
Geneen, who in his fine book Managing focused on the difference
between facts, opinions or guesses. Geneen, like Sergeant Friday,
usually wanted the facts. When he wanted your opinion, he would let
you know. If you offered a guess or opinion when he asked a question
to which there was a factual answer, he would make you wish you had
said "I don't know", an answer he respected, unless it was something
you should know. He had the keenest nose for speculation and there
was no bullshitting this guy. As a result, his business meetings and
discussions tended to get to grips with issues in a hurry. His
incredible memory for data enabled him to catch the close guesser more
often than was healthy for the chancer.
Currently reading Wild Swans, which recounts what China went through
starting with Japanese occupation of Manchuria, the Kuomintang, Mao's
follies and beyond. This has to be the ultimate demonstration of
humanity's penchant for swallowing bullshit built on lies. But the
bullshit is, as Appleyard's summary and Frankfurt's little book make
clear, more dangerous than lies, because the misrepresentation is
about the hidden agenda of the bullshitter as opposed to what he makes
it seem.
Political correctness is a disease that insists on diluting any
message to a level of blandness that makes clear thinking and
conclusion a fault; a recipe for bullshit. If there is any meaning,
you have to find it between the lines and it is your meaning not that
of the author. This mumble over time creates a thirst for straight
talk, but while straight talk may be stylistically refreshing, it is
also susceptible to bullshit and lies. So the identification and
rejection of bullshit remains a responsibility of the individual's
logic and common sense.
--------------------------
carl...@comcast.net
jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
[something fearfully suspicious]
Dear Jobst,
Here's one for you:
Richard Hofstadter, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
David L. Johnson
> I have always been puzzled at the public appetite for bullshit,
> without having a clear definition of the term. Bryan Appleyard's
> article points us to Mr. Frankfurt, who wrote a treatise of the
> nature of what we refer to as BS as opposed to untruth or lies.
I read a review of Frankfurt's book ("On Bullshit", published by
Princeton U. Press), and decided I had to have a copy. When it arrived
(less than $10 from Amazon), I found that it appeared to be an example of
its subject. This "book" is a 50-page pamphlet, with large print.
Reading through it you get the impression that Frankfurt is not really
defining the title term, but is bullshitting about it. But in the end,
you do get the idea of what he means; bullshit is an argument that is
formed with no concern about truth or falsehood, but instead is concerned
with the impact the argument will have. If you can "score points" with a
flurry of numbers or references, you win, regardless of whether or not the
numbers are real or the references relevant. He distinguishes bullshit
from lies in that a lie is told with knowledge of, and so concern for, the
truth, in an attempt to mislead the audience. The bullshitter
doesn't care whether his audience is mislead or not, just so he comes out
ahead.
To put this remotely close to on-topic, an ad for boutique wheels will
claim that because of the tripled-spoke pattern (as opposed to mere
paired-spoke patterns), the wheels will be faster, stiffer, and more
comfortable. This is bullshit. Bullshit because they don't care whether
or not the wheels are any of those things. They want to sell you the
wheels. Once your credit card is charged, they win. You then have a pair
of perfectly adequate (one hopes) but in no way superior wheels, for which
you paid $2000. You then rave to your buddies about how much faster you
are, and how stiff the wheels are, but how soft at the same time. This is
also bullshit; the goal you have is to convince your buddies that you
aren't a fool too easily parted from his money.
> Political correctness is a disease that insists on diluting any message
> to a level of blandness that makes clear thinking and conclusion a
> fault; a recipe for bullshit.
Agreed.
> If there is any meaning, you have to find
> it between the lines and it is your meaning not that of the author.
Because the author's intent is independent of the meaning of what he says.
> This
> mumble over time creates a thirst for straight talk, but while straight
> talk may be stylistically refreshing, it is also susceptible to bullshit
> and lies. So the identification and rejection of bullshit remains a
> responsibility of the individual's logic and common sense.
Well, to a degree. Straight talk is not conducive to bullshit; if you
simply say something is so, then it either is or is not, and you stand or
fall on the truth of the matter. The bullshitter is trying to get you to
think he knows something he doesn't, and he wins if he convinces you.
Just making a concise statement won't convince anyone independently of
their own ability to verify the statement.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Accept risk. Accept responsibility. Put a lawyer out of
_`\(,_ | business.
(_)/ (_) |
ljljlhgl
their own excrement over there.
data...@yahoo.com
he wrote about animal behavior and biology before animal behavior and
biology existed
and it was a real strain.
that's the way it reads.
empirical data is hard to get when there isn't any.
but its anti BS
T.Roosevelt got behind it.
their bike riding history is unknown at this time
Peter Cole
> I came across an appropriate web page essay that could be recommended
> applied philosophy reading:
>
> --------------------------
>
> I have always been puzzled at the public appetite for bullshit,
> without having a clear definition of the term. Bryan Appleyard's
> article points us to Mr. Frankfurt, who wrote a treatise of the
> nature of what we refer to as BS as opposed to untruth or lies.
This "essay" seems all over the map. I take Mr. Appleyard with a grain
of salt, apparently he believes in UFO's. Too bad nothing was linked,
what's the web for otherwise?
The Mr. Frankfut reference is discussed in this Slate magazine article,
which I think is a bit more coherent:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2114268/
A principal thesis, according to the article, is that bullshit is worse
than lies since it reveals an indifference to the truth rather than a
frank effort to replace the truth with a falshood. I don't know, I'm
not a philosopher, sounds like bullshit to me, though.
Is it ignorance or apathy
The worried will all disagree
Some say life isn't fair
Hell I don't know and I don't care
vfeev
It almost started to make sense in a couple places...
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> you should post this in the high-audio groups. They love to wallow
> in their own excrement over there.
Along that line, here in Palo Alto, we have a HiFi store that for many
years had no front window and only a plain text black and white sign
inside the glass door: "The Audible Difference" which BS detectors
translated to "The Inaudible Difference" or "The Audible Indifference"
jim beam
er, isn't this a mr. stone wannabe trying to make out like he's not
really mr. glasshouse?
Andy Heninger
self-deception. Probably the definitive paper on the subject, and
definitly my favorite.
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm
"On December 18, 1953, Dr. Irving Langmuir gave a colloquium at the
Research Laboratory that will long be remembered by those in his
audience. The talk was concerned with what Langmuir called "the science
of things that aren't so," and in it he gave a colorful account of
several examples of a particular kind of pitfall into which scientists
may sometimes stumble.
...
Mike Kruger
>
> This "essay" seems all over the map. I take Mr. Appleyard
with a grain
> of salt, apparently he believes in UFO's. Too bad nothing
was linked,
> what's the web for otherwise?
>
> The Mr. Frankfut reference is discussed in this Slate
magazine article,
> which I think is a bit more coherent:
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2114268/
>
> A principal thesis, according to the article, is that
bullshit is worse
> than lies since it reveals an indifference to the truth
rather than a
> frank effort to replace the truth with a falshood. I don't
know, I'm
> not a philosopher, sounds like bullshit to me, though.
>
(lies) and there is something called puffery. Puffery is when
you make a (probably false) claim that is allowable because no
reasonable person would believe it. An example would be a hot
dog stand claiming "World's Best Hot Dogs", when there is no
way to verify the claim, or the implied puffery of beer ads
which seem to imply a close connection between their brand of
beer and beautiful women. Of course, ads like this work (if
they do) because at some level we want to give some credence
to the claims.
Puffery would pretty much fill the bill as "bullshit", but
morally (and legally) it's much more innocent than a lie. Not
entirely innocent, of course. People must occasionally buy
those auto-shifting bikes off the bullshit infomercials, or
they wouldn't put on the infomercials. [reaching for some bike
content here]
The example of bullshit which begins the Slate article Peter
cites, "Your call is important to us", is either a polite
fiction (a white lie) or puffery -- or perhaps true. This
bullshit is certainly harmless and hardly fooling anybody. To
put this in the same realm as some of the great political lies
of my lifetime [*] is to trivialize the evil involved in the
lies.
--
Mike Kruger
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is
no path and leave a trail.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson, writing before the mountain bike was
invented.
[*] Great political lies of my lifetime: where to start?
To be bipartisan, we have Clinton's "I did not have sex with
that woman" and GW's claim about WMD's in Iraq.
But I'm barely old enough to have been born while Stalin was
still alive and have to award him the lifetime achievement
award in the "liar" category.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> in their own excrement over there.
>
> Along that line, here in Palo Alto, we have a HiFi store that for many
> years had no front window and only a plain text black and white sign
> inside the glass door: "The Audible Difference" which BS detectors
> translated to "The Inaudible Difference" or "The Audible Indifference"
Yeah, well you might not be so skeptical when you replace your standard
computer wiring with the new stuff from Monster Cable. Then just try and
tell me there's no difference between one cable and another. Oh sure, you'll
claim that any difference must be quantifiable, and the fact that a Monster
Cable gives exactly the same mileage & speed readings means you don't need
it. That's just closed-minded thinking. Your bike computer will never work
better than it does with a Monster Cable wiring harness.
[Sorry Sheldon, I claim this one first. Maybe this post should have waited
until 4/01/06?]
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
41
David L. Johnson wrote:
> I read a review of Frankfurt's book ("On Bullshit", published by
> Princeton U. Press), and decided I had to have a copy. When it
arrived
> (less than $10 from Amazon), I found that it appeared to be an
example of
> its subject. This "book" is a 50-page pamphlet, with large print.
> Reading through it you get the impression that Frankfurt is not
really
> defining the title term, but is bull shitting about it. But in the
end,
> you do get the idea of what he means; bullshit is an argument that is
> formed with no concern about truth or falsehood, but instead is
concerned
> with the impact the argument will have.
Frankfurt is a professional philosopher, and a respectable one at that.
People dissatisfied with his essay don't seem to realize that it is
itself also a parody of the biggest and most pernicious trends in
academic philosophy, lit crit and postmodernism. In other words, it is
about 50% direct attack on BS and then another 50% intentional BS, in
its own way a criticism of same.
Compare below the first paragraph of Frankfurt's satirical essay with
the real one that follows, and you will get what I mean. Remember that
Frankfurt's predates the second one by some 20 years. That latter one
is not representative of the genre because it is actually legible and
even refers indirectly to some real world problem.
===========================================================================
On Bullshit
Harry Frankfurt
Princeton University
One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so
much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share.
But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather
confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being
taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate
concern, or attracted much sustained inquiry. In consequence, we have
no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it,
or what functions it serves. And we lack a conscientiously developed
appreciation of what it means to us. In other words, we have no theory.
I propose to begin the development of a theoretical understanding of
bullshit, mainly by providing some tentative and exploratory
philosophical analysis. I shall not consider the rhetorical uses and
misuses of bullshit. My aim is simply to give a rough account of what
bullshit is and how it differs from what it is not, or (putting it
somewhat differently) to articulate, more or less sketchily, the
structure of its concept. Any suggestion about what conditions are
logically both necessary and sufficient for the constitution of
bullshit is bound to be somewhat arbitrary. For one thing, the
expression 'bullshit' is often employed quite loosely- simply as a
generic term of abuse, with no very specific literal meaning. For
another, the phenomenon itself is so vast and amorphous that no crisp
and perspicuous analysis of its concept can avoid being procrustean.
Nonetheless it should be possible to say something helpful, even though
it is not likely to be decisive. Even the most basic and preliminary
questions about bullshit remain, after all, not only unanswered but
unasked. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARBAGE
Volume 65, No. 1, of the journal Social Research (Spring 1998)
Arien Mack, Editor
Editor's Introduction
In the mass media, in public debate and in the workplace, the fear is
often voiced that garbage and waste may be the death of us and, even if
they do not kill us in some apocalyptic eco-disaster, they seem to have
pushed into crisis many of the political, legal and technological
arrangements we depend upon to protect the orderly functioning of
society. Although terms like "solid waste management," "landfill," and
"recyclable" have become part of everyday speech, the crisis created by
the mass production of garbage and waste have entered public
consciousness virtually without histories, without contexts and without
associations.
Public concerns about garbage and waste have multiplied in recent
years. With expanding worldwide industrialization, waste production now
appears unmanageable. The seemingly safe technologies of the past now
pose unanticipated dangers. And an increasingly interconnected global
society has forced an awareness that one person's dump site is always,
in some sense, another person's back yard. It is in this atmosphere
that this issue has been assembled.
Garbage and waste are potent subjects, overlaid with attitudes about
pollution and dirt, disgust and revulsion. Yet at the same time, many
of the problems associated with garbage and waste seem to be
straightforwardly practical, technical ones, not especially amenable to
the sort of conceptual, cultural or interpretive analysis offered by
philosophers, historians or literary scholars. Because garbage and
waste are inevitable products of human life and culture, because what
we designate garbage and waste are defined by their role or place in
our lives, an understanding of these dimensions must be an essential
part of any attempted solution to the garbage problem. To understand
the full meaning of garbage and waste we must understand their relation
to the value-laden human orders which produce them.
Efforts to describe and define garbage and waste typically call on two
venerable figures from western arts and letters: images of nature set
in relation to a presumed opposite culture or society. These images can
be seen in such topics as: What natural and artificial processes count
as having "disposed" of waste: burning? burying? placing beyond a
perimeter? What aspects or capacities of nature have made it seem
capable of absorbing and transforming waste? How do depletion, utility
and the history of an object's use contribute to its status as waste or
garbage? [...]
David L. Johnson
> In the advertising world, there is truth, there is deception
> (lies) and there is something called puffery. Puffery is when
> you make a (probably false) claim that is allowable because no
> reasonable person would believe it. An example would be a hot
> dog stand claiming "World's Best Hot Dogs", when there is no
> way to verify the claim, or the implied puffery of beer ads
> which seem to imply a close connection between their brand of
> beer and beautiful women. Of course, ads like this work (if
> they do) because at some level we want to give some credence
> to the claims.
I think there is a difference between puffery and bullshit. No one really
gives credence to a claim of "world's best hot dog", but some seem to be
snapped up by a motor oil that claims to have polarized molecules that
adhere to engine parts (I am _not_ making this up). The former is
puffery, the latter is bullshit.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Enron's slogan: Respect, Communication, Integrity, and
_`\(,_ | Excellence.
(_)/ (_) |
Tim McTeague
<jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:gtS8e.15098$m31.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>I came across an appropriate web page essay that could be recommended
> applied philosophy reading:
You should also check out Michael Shermer's, yes the former RAAM rider, book
"Why People Believe Weird Things". I have long been fascinated why
otherwise smart people fall for things such as Astrology, New Age healing,
pseudo science, God, etc.
Tim McTeague
Doug Huffman
news:AAW8e.15135$m31.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
While I played high-end audio they were called 'golden ears'. Imagine what
I call bicyclists that have similar arguments about their saddles.
Read Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt, perhaps 'Higher Superstition' or
'Flight from Science and Reason', Noretta Koertge's 'House Built on Sand' or
Levitt's 'Prometheus Bedeviled'. Doing so led me to the idea of
'falsifyability', a formal logic concept from Karl Popper that I would
extend to rhetoric. Something along the lines of 'a statement so vague or
over qualified as to be tautologic is null'. Hence my 'dot.sig' line of
some years ago, "Grasping another opportunity to be wrong."
And I remember the Palo Alto HiFi store or one so like it as to be
indistinguishable.
jim beam
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:57:12 -0500, Mike Kruger wrote:
>
>
>>In the advertising world, there is truth, there is deception
>>(lies) and there is something called puffery. Puffery is when
>>you make a (probably false) claim that is allowable because no
>>reasonable person would believe it. An example would be a hot
>>dog stand claiming "World's Best Hot Dogs", when there is no
>>way to verify the claim, or the implied puffery of beer ads
>>which seem to imply a close connection between their brand of
>>beer and beautiful women. Of course, ads like this work (if
>>they do) because at some level we want to give some credence
>>to the claims.
>
>
> I think there is a difference between puffery and bullshit. No one really
> gives credence to a claim of "world's best hot dog", but some seem to be
> snapped up by a motor oil that claims to have polarized molecules that
> adhere to engine parts (I am _not_ making this up). The former is
> puffery, the latter is bullshit.
>
detergent oil. they're not stuff you'd do your laundry with, but
nevertheless these detergents /do/ have polar molecules & they /do/
adsorb to a surface. you're absolutely correct that a lot of marketing
material appears, er, "confused" on this subject, but be assured that
detergent oils are very real and /do/ "adhere to engine parts".
Greg Berchin
<3.141...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>
>>Good advice, but don't expect to see dramatic results right away. The
>>wires require a significant break-in period.
Have you tried cryogenic cooling? They're cooling everything
from CDs to saxophones to 4 Kelvin, and claiming improved
performance once "thawed". Imagine what that'll do for your
cyclocomputer. Imagine what it'll do for your frame, rims,
spokes, helmet, saddle ...
Mark Hickey
Mike, don't forget it's gotta have oxygen-free copper. How can you
race without oxygen-free copper?
Mark "Fabrizio would be horrified" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Jim Smith
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> And here's yet another paper on the topic of scientific BS or
> self-deception. Probably the definitive paper on the subject, and
> definitly my favorite.
> http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm
and another:
Neil Brooks
>>> you should post this in the high-audio groups. They love to wallow
>>> in their own excrement over there.
>>
>> Along that line, here in Palo Alto, we have a HiFi store that for many
>> years had no front window and only a plain text black and white sign
>> inside the glass door: "The Audible Difference" which BS detectors
>> translated to "The Inaudible Difference" or "The Audible Indifference"
>
>Yeah, well you might not be so skeptical when you replace your standard
>computer wiring with the new stuff from Monster Cable. Then just try and
>tell me there's no difference between one cable and another. Oh sure, you'll
>claim that any difference must be quantifiable, and the fact that a Monster
>Cable gives exactly the same mileage & speed readings means you don't need
>it. That's just closed-minded thinking. Your bike computer will never work
>better than it does with a Monster Cable wiring harness.
Not sure the cynicism is totally justified.
When I upgraded the wiring on my Cateye Astrale to some AWG 00 (scrap
from the starter on an old Bradley Fighting Vehicle), I picked up 3mph
on the flats . . . without *actually* going any faster.
I cut impedance by a factor of 350, but the extra weight of the 3.5
feet of 3/8" thick wire *might* have upped the weight just a tad.
Handily, the AWG 00 doubles as a cable lock.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> In the advertising world, there is truth, there is deception (lies)
>> and there is something called puffery. Puffery is when you make a
>> (probably false) claim that is allowable because no reasonable
>> person would believe it. An example would be a hot dog stand
>> claiming "World's Best Hot Dogs", when there is no way to verify
>> the claim, or the implied puffery of beer ads which seem to imply a
>> close connection between their brand of beer and beautiful women.
>> Of course, ads like this work (if they do) because at some level we
>> want to give some credence to the claims.
> I think there is a difference between puffery and bullshit. No one
> really gives credence to a claim of "world's best hot dog", but some
> seem to be snapped up by a motor oil that claims to have polarized
> molecules that adhere to engine parts (I am _not_ making this up).
> The former is puffery, the latter is bullshit.
Beyond that, we probably all know people in whose tales we have little
belief because we know them to be bullshitters, known in German as
"Hochstapler" 'one who piles high' and the allusion to shit is there.
The trouble is that unless that person has stepped into a field of
ones expertise, proof of this tendency doesn't immediately surface.
Once defrocked, the BS artist has a hard row to hoe in convincing
those who are aware, something BS artists does not recognize, just as
scam artists are often the biggest suckers, not having a sense for
truth.
It's the problem of "I was lying then but I'm telling the truth now."
Oh yeah!
Greg Berchin
<3.141...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Holy cow!
>>
>>http://www.cryogenicsinternational.com
Sorry, I said 4 Kelvin, but I guess it's "only" 77 Kelvin. Of
course, that makes all the difference in the world! :)
Greg
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> I came across an appropriate web page essay that could be
>> recommended applied philosophy reading:
...
> You should also check out Michael Shermer's, yes the former RAAM
> rider, book "Why People Believe Weird Things". I have long been
> fascinated why otherwise smart people fall for things such as
> Astrology, New Age healing, pseudo science, God, etc.
or Scientology... or Jim Jones and Peoples Temple!
ts...@mailcity.com
<< You should also check out Michael Shermer's, yes the former RAAM
rider, book
"Why People Believe Weird Things". I have long been fascinated why
otherwise smart people fall for things such as Astrology, New Age
healing,
pseudo science, God, etc. >>
I'd never made the connection, but you are certainly right. Shermer's
resume
http://www.skeptic.com/DrShermerCV.htm
lists a whole bunch of impressive stuff including his stints as a
Scientific American columnist, along with RAAM and some other
impressive cycling achievements.
Antti Salonen
> Mike, don't forget it's gotta have oxygen-free copper. How can you
> race without oxygen-free copper?
Oxygen-free copper is indeed one the magic words associated with
high-end audio cables. Somebody over here was wondering what's so
special about it, so he called a local copper refinery and asked if they
produce it. According to the refinery, they've produced nothing else in
the last 20+ years.
-as
data...@yahoo.com
Neil Brooks
There goes my whole idea about breathing with my mouth full of
pennies.
Oh, well . . . it was time for a "change" anyway (I slay me....).
data...@yahoo.com
Jay Beattie
<jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:jh99e.15211$m31.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Or Christianity. Careful. It's a slippery slope when we get
into discussing faith-based belief systems. The only way to
evaluate them is based on how many people they help or hurt. --
Jay Beattie.
David L. Johnson
But you miss the point, and that is that they don't care whether or not
what they say is true, just so you buy their product. All oils have
detergents, so any claims about their "polarized molecules" would apply to
any brand of oil, not just theirs.
Heck, as far as I understand it, water is a polarized molecule.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists is
_`\(,_ | not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant.
(_)/ (_) | --Robert F. Kennedy
David L. Johnson
>>Oxygen-free copper is indeed one the magic words associated with
>>high-end audio cables. Somebody over here was wondering what's so
>>special about it, so he called a local copper refinery and asked if they
>>produce it. According to the refinery, they've produced nothing else in
>>the last 20+ years.
>
> There goes my whole idea about breathing with my mouth full of
> pennies.
Pennies are mostly zinc, anyway. Cut one in half and you'll see, unless
it is a very old penny.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored
_`\(,_ | by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo
(_)/ (_) | Emerson
David L. Johnson
They claim it will stress-relieve... Dip your wheels in liquid nitrogen...
--
David L. Johnson
__o | As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
_`\(,_ | certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
(_)/ (_) | reality. -- Albert Einstein
vfeev
convinced that though it is mainly BS, there are many who actually
believe not only the BS they hear from others, but also the BS they
themselves spew. There are a bunch of small communities of folks who
are stuck in positive feedback loops, all driving each other to new
states of excitement over new BS. The more outrageous and ridiculous
your claim, the more willing they are to believe it.
If you have a statistic that says 1 person in 10,000 over the age of
30 can hear ANYTHING above 15 kHz, 99% of high end audio maniacs
believe themselves to be that 1 person in 10,000. Yes, your typical
audio maniac more acute senses than you, knows more about everything
than you, and most important, has more money than you.
I think that audio has even surpassed wine in terms of the BS involved
in marketing the product, and there is a large overlap in the target
markets for both.
Maybe it's like George Costanza says: "it's not a lie if you believe
it".
Mike Jacoubowsky
> feet of 3/8" thick wire *might* have upped the weight just a tad.
>
> Handily, the AWG 00 doubles as a cable lock.
Who needs a lock? The guy with the broken back who tried to lift your bike
won't get very far.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Tim McTeague
<jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:jh99e.15211$m31.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
I know, the list is endless! Copper bracelets, magnets in shoes, carb free
diets, UFOs, Republicans, etc.
Tim McTeague
Tim McTeague
"Jay Beattie" <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:116aapf...@corp.supernews.com...
the same thing in common, credulity.
Tim McTeague
Tim McTeague
<ts...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:1113925144....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
But, the scariest thing of all, he used to be "born again"!!! I still don't
see how such a logical mind ever fell for that. I've got most of his books
and, when I picked up the first, thought "hey, I know a cyclist with the
same name", never thinking they were one in the same.
Tim McTeague
Mike Kruger
news:a7mdnVpsXeO...@comcast.com...
get
> > into discussing faith-based belief systems. The only way
to
> > evaluate them is based on how many people they help or
hurt. --
> > Jay Beattie.
> >
> >
> That is why I said "God". All religions, or at least their
followers, have
> the same thing in common, credulity.
>
man.
--
Mike Kruger
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is
no path and leave a trail.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson, writing before the mountain bike was
invented.
Mike Kruger
sin, then repenting. ???
Shermer fell into fundamentalist religion, and then turned
back toward the true way.
Leo Lichtman
"David L. Johnson" wrote: (clip) Dip your wheels in liquid nitrogen...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, Dave, according to established BS, you're supposed to put the nitrogen
INSIDE the tires. But when I poured the liquid nitrogen into my pump the
whole thing froze, and I got nowhere.
Phil, Squid-in-Training
i.e. karma or the boy who cried wolf?
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Phil, Squid-in-Training
> I have been in and out of the high-end audio thing for years and I am
> convinced that though it is mainly BS, there are many who actually
> believe not only the BS they hear from others, but also the BS they
> themselves spew. There are a bunch of small communities of folks who
> are stuck in positive feedback loops, all driving each other to new
> states of excitement over new BS.
ROFL! That last statement put a hilarious image in my mind...
Are there any other circles where BS brings people together so well? I
thought bikes were bad, but now that I think about it, cameras and lenses
are pretty bad, too.
Here's the most expensive speaker cable ever:
http://gallery.consumerreview.com/audio/gallery/files/opus-mm.asp
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Phil, Squid-in-Training
> someone writes:
>
>> you should post this in the high-audio groups. They love to wallow
>> in their own excrement over there.
>
> Along that line, here in Palo Alto, we have a HiFi store that for many
> years had no front window and only a plain text black and white sign
> inside the glass door: "The Audible Difference" which BS detectors
> translated to "The Inaudible Difference" or "The Audible Indifference"
>
Here's a good example of driving people to new heights of BS... a $23,500
set of speaker cables, housed in carbon fiber.
Jay Beattie
"vfeev" <fevre> wrote in message
news:0ela619c8q9pg245l...@4ax.com...
BTW, my son and I just measured a bunch of people in this age
range for his science project, and some could hear into the 17kHz
range. My son is 9 years old and can hear over 19kHz -- but he
likes to listen to Legend of Zelda MIDIs played over computer
speakers. Not much of an audiophile.
Adiophiles may dump a lot of money on sonic voodoo, but at least
they do not dress up in team gear and pretend to be racers.
There is something about poseurs on mega-dollar bikes that
really irritates me. Look, its the world champion riding down my
street! Hey, Oscar, sign my shorts! -- Jay Beattie.
jim beam
but when you say "a motor oil that claims to have polarized molecules
that adhere to engine parts... ...is bull." doesn't that mean you think
that claim to be a lie?
> All oils have
> detergents, so any claims about their "polarized molecules" would apply to
> any brand of oil, not just theirs.
no, there are many non-detergent oils, it's just that most modern motor
oils contain detergent.
>
> Heck, as far as I understand it, water is a polarized molecule.
>
water, that extroardinary molecule, is weakly polar, yes, but it doesn't
have a giant aliphatic chain or lubricative properties.
Jim Smith
That is a good item to put in a time capsule without explanation.
When opened in 1000 years there would be much head scratching:
WTF... It's just a wire... why did they do THIS... what possible
function could THESE serve... They might conclude it was some sort of
religous object. And they would be correct.
David L. Johnson
>
> I know, the list is endless! Copper bracelets, magnets in shoes,
A very sincere woman tried to sell me on those magnets in shoes. Said the
magnetic fields replaced the electric fields we are exposed to in today's
world. I kept my laughter to myself.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can
_`\(,_ | only be cured by something racy and Italian. Bianchis and
(_)/ (_) | Colnagos are a lot cheaper than Maserattis and Ferraris. --
Glenn Davies
Jim Smith
> water, that extroardinary molecule, is weakly polar, yes, but it
> doesn't have a giant aliphatic chain or lubricative properties.
Nah, water is a great lubricant. Ask Brian Boitano.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
http://gallery.consumerreview.com/audio/gallery/files/opus-mm.asp
Oh? I've been misled (pronounced my-zeld). I thought that these
things had to have visible gold plated copper conductors under clear
insulation. I guess I'm behind the times. Besides, the ones I saw
had no "black box" in the middle.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> Adiophiles may dump a lot of money on sonic voodoo, but at least
> they do not dress up in team gear and pretend to be racers. There
> is something about poseurs on mega-dollar bikes that really
> irritates me. Look, its the world champion riding down my street!
> Hey, Oscar, sign my shorts!
Ted
Yes. But don't fill your crankcase with it.
--
Ted Bennett
Portland, OR
jim beam
Mike Kruger
news:1113889001....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> David L. Johnson wrote:
>
> > I read a review of Frankfurt's book ("On Bullshit",
published by
> > Princeton U. Press), and decided I had to have a copy.
When it
> arrived
> > (less than $10 from Amazon), I found that it appeared to
be an
> example of
> > its subject. This "book" is a 50-page pamphlet, with
large print.
>
> Frankfurt is a professional philosopher, and a respectable
one at that.
> People dissatisfied with his essay don't seem to realize
that it is
> itself also a parody of the biggest and most pernicious
trends in
> academic philosophy, lit crit and postmodernism. In other
words, it is
> about 50% direct attack on BS and then another 50%
intentional BS, in
> its own way a criticism of same.
>
> Compare below the first paragraph of Frankfurt's satirical
essay with
> the real one that follows, and you will get what I mean.
Remember that
> Frankfurt's predates the second one by some 20 years. That
latter one
> is not representative of the genre because it is actually
legible and
> even refers indirectly to some real world problem.
>
<bullshit and garbage snipped>
That was indeed remarkable. Thanks.
vfeev
>Shermer fell into fundamentalist religion, and then turned
>back toward the true way.
A lot of people react to some problem or tragedy by getting religion.
It is easier to think of things as an "act of god" with some sort of
meaning that we are just too dumb to comprehend, than to face the
possibility of either no god or one who doesn't care about us.
A lot of folks who get religion thump the bible for a while, and after
beating their heads against the walls of indifference eventually
settle quietly into their own private fantasies.
Anyway, the religion thing can wear off quickly if one does not
immerse oneself into it too deeply or continuously.
I used to live in Dallas. There were a lot of mixed up people there.
You had the jesus fantasy in full effect, and then there was the
cowboy fantasy- imigine it- grown men driving pick-up trucks (I guess
it would be stretching the fantasy too far to ride a horse- clever
marketing on the part of the car auto manufacturers- I wonder when
they'll come out with a car specifically designed for christians...),
wearing cowboy hats, boots, and big belt buckles. There were quite a
few who organized their lives around BOTH of those fantasies.
I have been told that I feel this way because the good lord chose to
blind me to his works. Thank you, Jesus!
vfeev
>Are there any other circles where BS brings people together so well? I
>thought bikes were bad, but now that I think about it, cameras and lenses
>are pretty bad, too.
Wine! There is more crap in wine than any other ingredient. The crap
serves as a fertilizer for the egos of the self-proclaimed
oeneologists.
I used to live in the SF bay area. The wine snobbery I witnessed on a
daily basis was enough to make me sick. I recall many a dinner out
with some of the folks from work (HP at that time) at a cheap,
delicious ethnic restaraunt where dinner was going to cost about $10
per head until the oeneologist in the group (there is at least one in
every group in the bay area, no matter how small the group) decided we
needed to order a $200 bottle of wine to go with the $5 bowls of Thai
noodles.
I am glad to be out of THAT environment.
Mark Hickey
>BTW, my son and I just measured a bunch of people in this age
>range for his science project, and some could hear into the 17kHz
>range. My son is 9 years old and can hear over 19kHz -- but he
>likes to listen to Legend of Zelda MIDIs played over computer
>speakers. Not much of an audiophile.
Heh... I used to be able to hear to 21-22kHz, but suspect it's dropped
off a bit. At the time I was working on stereo equipment and used to
laugh at some of the claims. My personal favorite was how
"audiophiles" would wax poetic about the improvement from an amplifier
with .004% THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) to one with .001%.
Thing is, in testing only the most discerning subject could detect THD
in quantities smaller than 0.5%.
Don't ask me why that makes me think about carbon seat stays.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Vic
wrote:
>"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <phil_leeIHEA...@hotmail.com> writes:
Maybe this is a good thing: That those amongst us who are "bedevilled"
by the need for an outlet for faith do so via belief in questionable
hi-fi components.
I don't see anybody going to war over speaker cables!
Mark Hickey
>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:53:54 +0000, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>>>Oxygen-free copper is indeed one the magic words associated with
>>>high-end audio cables. Somebody over here was wondering what's so
>>>special about it, so he called a local copper refinery and asked if they
>>>produce it. According to the refinery, they've produced nothing else in
>>>the last 20+ years.
>>
>> There goes my whole idea about breathing with my mouth full of
>> pennies.
>
>Pennies are mostly zinc, anyway. Cut one in half and you'll see, unless
>it is a very old penny.
The old ones were much more compliant, yet stiffer.
Phil, Squid-in-Training
If we had fully sealed crankcases lubricated with water, would we have
problems? I read somewhere in the FAQ I think that water isn't a bad
lubricant, just as long as air is absent.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Mike Jacoubowsky
Right. And over in the hi-fi newsgroups, somebody's probably saying
something like "I don't see anybody going to war over bicycle helmets!"
Oh. Right. You meant guns & stuff, not flaming usenet posts.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Vic" <victor_papan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d10c61t38283ash5t...@4ax.com...
jtaylor
"jim beam" <nos...@example.net> wrote in message
news:1113958860.86cdf0a21a1b6f73615867965df0a092@teranews...
> water, that extroardinary molecule, is weakly polar, yes, but it doesn't
> have a giant aliphatic chain or lubricative properties.
But the FAQ says:
"...water is a moderately good lubricant..."
vfeev
>That is a good item to put in a time capsule without explanation.
>When opened in 1000 years there would be much head scratching:
>WTF... It's just a wire... why did they do THIS... what possible
>function could THESE serve... They might conclude it was some sort of
>religous object. And they would be correct.
I doubt the human species will survive another 1000 years.
jim beam
industry has us believe, selling us motor lubricants that we don't need
indeed! what a scam!
jim beam
a stroke of my hand! i can prove rim cracking is initiated by anodizing
using a dye penetrant test! onward the power of our subject line!
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Well okay... since I fell into the pit according to you, what reasons make
it not true?
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Jim Smith
I'll be the first to admit I don't know anything about lubricants and
bearings and that sort of thing, but isn't water commonly used as a
lubricant in hydrodynamic bearings in turbines? I seem to remember
hearing it is used to lubricate when cutting and drilling rock? Is
there any particular reason water couldn't be used in the hydrostatic
bearings commonly used for automotive crankshafts?
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Better yet, offer to Sheldon corrections to the fallacies that can be posted
on the website so that you don't have to keep screaming about it every time
it's brought up on the newsgroup.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Jim Smith
I bet Paul and Jesus used to sit around and say the same thing.
data...@yahoo.com
"see that you have enough gasoline and oil in the tanks for your trip."
David L. Johnson
>> But you miss the point, and that is that they don't care whether or not
>> what they say is true, just so you buy their product.
>
> but when you say "a motor oil that claims to have polarized molecules
> that adhere to engine parts... ...is bull." doesn't that mean you think
> that claim to be a lie?
Correct. I am not saying it's a lie, the BS is using some property, with
language inflated to make it seem more important or innovative than it is,
to try to sell one brand over another --- when they all have that same
property.
> no, there are many non-detergent oils, it's just that most modern motor
> oils contain detergent.
_All_ modern motor oil contains detergents.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can
_`\(,_ | assure you that mine are all greater. -- A. Einstein
(_)/ (_) |
Pat Lamb
> "David L. Johnson" <david....@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:53:54 +0000, Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Oxygen-free copper is indeed one the magic words associated with
>>>>high-end audio cables. Somebody over here was wondering what's so
>>>>special about it, so he called a local copper refinery and asked if they
>>>>produce it. According to the refinery, they've produced nothing else in
>>>>the last 20+ years.
>>>
>>>There goes my whole idea about breathing with my mouth full of
>>>pennies.
>>
>>Pennies are mostly zinc, anyway. Cut one in half and you'll see, unless
>>it is a very old penny.
>
>
> The old ones were much more compliant, yet stiffer.
Don't pennies get softer with age?
Pat
bg
Non- Detergent oils in 20,30,40 weight straight grades available.
Premium quality base oil. *Case price includes freight.
Case (12- 32oz.) FREE SHIPPING 32.25
Bruce Jackson
No matter how hard one tries to be skeptical we tend to accept things
that agree with our world view and reject things that don't. It's just
human nature.
One topic I became fascinated with is gun control. You read the
polemics from both sides and on the surface they both appear scientific
but come to wildly different conclusions. In this case each side looks
for anything to support their position while having blinders to
everything that doesn't.
It is impossible for any of us to be objective because we each live in
our subjective reality. None the less I'd argue that objectivity is
something to strive for.
Leo Lichtman
"Pat Lamb" wrote: Don't pennies get softer with age?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you're talking about buying power, YES.
carl...@comcast.net
Squid-in-Training" <phil_leeIHEA...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Dear Phil,
While clean water will lubricate your chain surprisingly
well in the short run, it evaporates, it causes rust, and it
carried lots of road sludge into the chain.
For a car engine, water won't work well even if the engine
is sealed because it boils at a low temperature, which is
bad for pumps designed for liquids. ("Vapor lock" is simply
your gas pump choking on a hot day when fed vapor instead of
liquid.) Also, steam doesn't lubricate very well.
Water also has a bad habit of freezing and, unlike most
other common substances, expanding with tremendous force to
break things. That's why the water cooling jacket has freeze
plugs--the hope is that they'll burst first when you forget
the anti-freeze and let things drain instead of cracking a
cast-iron engine block in half.
Plain water also doesn't clean things very well, despite its
faintly polarized molecule. A car engine is basically a huge
air pump that blasts gigantic quantities of air (cleaned of
larger pebbles, twigs, and dust by the air filter) through a
number of piston pumps by exploding gasoline under high
compression. Some of this blast leaks past the piston rings,
particularly when things wear, and contaminates the
lubricant. Pour out a little fresh oil and compare it to
what they drain from your engine, and you'll have a good
idea of just how filthy things get with a good detergent
constantly cleaning the stuff off the incredibly complicated
interior passages of the engine--you want that stuff in the
oil, not caking up in the oil passages and bearing surfaces.
(Let's not cut an oil filter in half--this is a family
newsgroup.)
Water also fails to wet metal surfaces worth a damn. That
is, a thin film does provide lubrication, as anyone who's
slipped on a damp floor knows, but the stuff drains right
down a wall and evaporates at room temperature with
surprising speed. Throw some oil on the same wall, and
things will still be slithery a week later. This matters
because the worst few moments in an engine's life are when
it first starts--it takes a few moments for the pump to
circulate oil up to the top and for it all to start
trickling down, slow and thick and cold--so it's nice to
know that there's still a thin film of oil in all the
bearing surfaces from yesterday or last week. If it's been a
year and you care about the engine, you probably want to
squirt some oil in a few spots before starting it.
There are a number of other drawbacks to lubricating
gasoline engines with water, but I'll leave them to any more
knowledgeable fellows interested in explaining curious
details. It's kind of fun, since it makes you think about
how things work.
Carl Fogel
LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m
>> This mumble over time creates a thirst for straight talk,
>> but while straight talk may be stylistically refreshing,
>> it is also susceptible to bullshit and lies.
>
> Straight talk is not conducive to bullshit; if you simply
> say something is so, then it either is or is not
That logical fallacy is called the "excluded middle" [also "false
dichotomy"] meaning that by stating only two alternatives, you've
excluded all other plausible alternatives, such as something being
partially so, or temporarily so, or conditionally so. Life is not in
black and white, which is why Jobst is correct about so-called "straight
talk" being susceptible to bullshit and lies from those purporting to
furnish you the plain and simple truth, which is in fact neither. Their
pronouncements are easily digested by the simpleminded, though, hence
their appeal.
--
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)
jim beam
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:00:43 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>
>
>>>But you miss the point, and that is that they don't care whether or not
>>>what they say is true, just so you buy their product.
>>
>>but when you say "a motor oil that claims to have polarized molecules
>>that adhere to engine parts... ...is bull." doesn't that mean you think
>>that claim to be a lie?
>
>
> Correct. I am not saying it's a lie, the BS is using some property, with
> language inflated to make it seem more important or innovative than it is,
> to try to sell one brand over another --- when they all have that same
> property.
>
>
>>no, there are many non-detergent oils, it's just that most modern motor
>>oils contain detergent.
>
>
> _All_ modern motor oil contains detergents.
>
jim beam
> jim beam <nos...@example.net> writes:
>
>
>>jtaylor wrote:
>>
>>>"jim beam" <nos...@example.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1113958860.86cdf0a21a1b6f73615867965df0a092@teranews...
>>>
>>>
>>>>water, that extroardinary molecule, is weakly polar, yes, but it doesn't
>>>>have a giant aliphatic chain or lubricative properties.
>>>
>>>But the FAQ says:
>>>"...water is a moderately good lubricant..."
>>>
>>
>>yeah, that's a good one isn't it? another example of the b.s. the oil
>>industry has us believe, selling us motor lubricants that we don't
>>need indeed! what a scam!
>
>
> I'll be the first to admit I don't know anything about lubricants and
> bearings and that sort of thing, but isn't water commonly used as a
> lubricant in hydrodynamic bearings in turbines?
not turbines that i know of. water is used in non-metallic bearings
like delrin, but delrin has self-lube properties as well. compressed
air is used in other fluid dynamic bearings, but they're generally high
speed, not high load bearings.
> I seem to remember
> hearing it is used to lubricate when cutting and drilling rock?
water is used to carry abrasion product away from cutting teeth and to
keep them cool. it's also cheap & abundant. to call it lubricant is a
stretch.
> Is
> there any particular reason water couldn't be used in the hydrostatic
> bearings commonly used for automotive crankshafts?
hydrodynamic - depend on movement for their operation. carl fogel's
answered this quite well.
jim beam
good idea.
David L. Johnson
wrote:
> David L. Johnson replied to Jobst.Brandt:
>
>>> This mumble over time creates a thirst for straight talk,
>>> but while straight talk may be stylistically refreshing,
>>> it is also susceptible to bullshit and lies.
>>
>> Straight talk is not conducive to bullshit; if you simply
>> say something is so, then it either is or is not
>
> That logical fallacy is called the "excluded middle" [also "false
> dichotomy"]
The law of the excluded middle is far from a false dichotomy. If I say
that all cows are brown, then whether you show me a brown-and-white cow,
or a black cow, shows that my statement was false. If you present two
situations, and imply that those are the only alternatives (recent
elections come to mind), then _that_ is a false dichotomy. I am not
suggesting that.
The law of the excluded middle is a mathematical concept, saying that a
statement is either consistent with basic principles (such as axioms of
set theory), or is not. This allows such arguments as a proof by
contradiction. You show something is true by arguing that, if it were
false, some clearly false conclusion would follow. There is a branch of
mathematics which does not accept this concept, but they are rather
regarded as outside the mainstream. There is another notion of a
statement being independent of the axioms of set theory, such as the
continuum hypothesis, but that is another story.
meaning that by stating only two
alternatives, you've
> excluded all other plausible alternatives, such as something being
> partially so, or temporarily so, or conditionally so.
For me, in order for something to not be _so_, all one would need would be
a single counter-example. So these qualified statements are different
statements. There is no exception that proves the rule; the exception
proves that the rule, as stated, is false, unless the statement includes
some qualification.
> Their
> pronouncements are easily digested by the simpleminded, though, hence
> their appeal.
Hmm.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Jim,
Carl is now brooding about his carefree claim that steam
doesn't lubricate well. When will Carl learn not to let fly
with wild, impractical statements like that?
Does steam lubricate things as well as water?
The original steam engine pistons may have had nothing else
for lubrication, but a big rat could crawl through some of
their clearances. And were they lubricated by steam, or by
water condensed on the surfaces?
Modern naval steam engines have lots of oily surfaces,
requiring all sorts of tricks with things like fuller's
earth to clean the greasy, oily fresh water before it's
recycled through the boiler again.
Admittedly, even a low-pressure steam-bath sealed
chain-guard would be difficult to engineer, but now I want
to know if it would work as well as a warm-water bath chain
guard.
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
<david....@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> There is no exception that proves the rule; the exception
>proves that the rule, as stated, is false, unless the statement includes
>some qualification.
[snip]
Dear David,
"Exceptio probat regulam" is actually just a dreadful
mistranslation, as Bierce explains:
EXCEPTION, n. A thing which takes the liberty to differ
from other things of its class, as an honest man, a truthful
woman, etc. "The exception proves the rule" is an
expression constantly upon the lips of the ignorant, who
parrot it from one another with never a thought of its
absurdity. In the Latin, "_Exceptio probat regulam_" means
that the exception _tests_ the rule, puts it to the proof,
not _confirms_ it. The malefactor who drew the meaning from
this excellent dictum and substituted a contrary one of his
own exerted an evil power which appears to be immortal.
Carl Fogel
Jim Smith
> Jim Smith wrote:
>> bearings and that sort of thing, but isn't water commonly used as a
>> lubricant in hydrodynamic bearings in turbines?
>
> not turbines that i know of.
I was probobly thinking of hydroelectric dams. I think at least some
of them use water as a lubricant.
jim beam
not as far as i know.
>
> The original steam engine pistons may have had nothing else
> for lubrication, but a big rat could crawl through some of
> their clearances. And were they lubricated by steam, or by
> water condensed on the surfaces?
neither - all early steam engines i've ever seen are oil lubricated,
even the crudest ones.
>
> Modern naval steam engines have lots of oily surfaces,
> requiring all sorts of tricks with things like fuller's
> earth to clean the greasy, oily fresh water before it's
> recycled through the boiler again.
>
> Admittedly, even a low-pressure steam-bath sealed
> chain-guard would be difficult to engineer, but now I want
> to know if it would work as well as a warm-water bath chain
> guard.
bath water might work better than rain water, assuming there's soap in
it of course!
>
> Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
<nos...@example.net> wrote:
Dear Jim,
Hmmm . . . you seem to be right about oil lube for the steam
piston at least as far back as James Watt, but it seems to
presented as an improvement on the even older models:
"He next substituted oil and tallow for water in the
lubrication of the piston and keeping it steam-tight . . ."
http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/thurston/1878/Chapter3.html
The older and cruder Newcomen engine used water as both a
seal and a lubricant (I think). I don't expect that the
low-pressure steam whistling past the piston could work as a
useful lubricant, but I'm still wondering about ancient
steam engines.
Carl Fogel
jtaylor
>
> neither - all early steam engines i've ever seen are oil lubricated,
> even the crudest ones.
>
One of Watt's improvements was the substitution of oil for water in
lubrication.
trg
ucjb61h1obkh9io3k...@4ax.com...
|
| >Are there any other circles where BS brings people together so well? I
| >thought bikes were bad, but now that I think about it, cameras and lenses
| >are pretty bad, too.
|
| Wine! There is more crap in wine than any other ingredient. The crap
| serves as a fertilizer for the egos of the self-proclaimed
| oeneologists.
|
| I used to live in the SF bay area. The wine snobbery I witnessed on a
| daily basis was enough to make me sick. I recall many a dinner out
| with some of the folks from work (HP at that time) at a cheap,
| delicious ethnic restaraunt where dinner was going to cost about $10
| per head until the oeneologist in the group (there is at least one in
| every group in the bay area, no matter how small the group) decided we
| needed to order a $200 bottle of wine to go with the $5 bowls of Thai
| noodles.
|
| I am glad to be out of THAT environment.
There's the problem. Shouldn't have been ordering crappy $5 bowls of Thai
soup to go with spectacular $200 bottles of wine :)
Peter Cole
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> While clean water will lubricate your chain surprisingly
> well in the short run, it evaporates, it causes rust, and it
> carried lots of road sludge into the chain.
>
> For a car engine, water won't work well
For a very nice article on lubrication with car engine specifics:
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NAILING THE HAMMER?
By Arianna Huffington
The Hammer was in a steely mood this weekend. Moments before
brandishing a rifle over his head, embattled House Majority Leader Tom
DeLay told a crowd of gun lovers at the National Rifle Association's
annual convention, "When a man is in trouble or in a good fight, you
want to have your friends around--preferably armed."
The NRA members, who had paid $75 to dine on sirloin steak with
peppercorn cognac sauce and hear DeLay wax romantic about
firearms--"If you want to empower women in America, give 'em a
gun"--responded with thunderous applause. I wouldn't be surprised if
the judges in the Terri Schiavo case, whom DeLay had warned would have
to "answer for their behavior," responded by running out to buy
bulletproof vests.
Among the friends who have gathered 'round DeLay is Rep. Roy Blunt,
the number-three ranking Republican in the House, who appeared on
"Meet the Press" the morning after DeLay's NRA speech to defend his
colleague. No word on whether Blunt was packing heat. But his
performance marked a new low in the GOP's "see no evil" approach to
their man Tom.
The key exchange started with Tim Russert offering up a
chapter-and-verse recital of DeLay's misdeeds--and quoting generously
from the Wall Street Journal's scathing "Smells Like Beltway"
editorial.
"These stories, I think," responded Blunt, far from bluntly, "are all
based on some facts and lots of things that aren't factual." This led
a clearly exasperated Russert to ask: "Has he done anything wrong?"
The answer came back: "My impression is he has not done anything
wrong."
So is this the latest official GOP line on DeLay? First we had: "The
liberal, anti-Christian media are out to get him." Then we had:
"Everyone is doing it" (a.k.a., "Look at Hillary and Pelosi and Bernie
Sanders!"). Then came: "Hey, we're all human, everyone makes mistakes,
let's get on with more important issues--like getting rid of the death
tax."
But, nope, forget all that. Too subtle. Too nuanced. Too 1998. Now we
have: "He has not done anything wrong." If it weren't so repugnant,
this kind of loyalty would be inspiring.
Unfortunately for Blunt--and of course for DeLay--the Majority
Leader's ethical rap sheet is longer than the list of prepubescent
boys who have shared Michael Jackson's bed. It's a profusion of
unprincipled line-crossings and shady dealings. A primer on "How to
Play the Washington System for Fun, Profit and Political Power."
And it's left DeLay's foes far better armed than his friends. Their
weapon of choice is the Joe Friday special: Just the facts, ma'am.
These facts start with dodgy fundraising tactics; take a long detour
through Russia, Britain and South Korea on lavish trips paid for by
lobbyists; stop for a beer with seedy pals like Jack "Indian Taker"
Abramoff; include the misuse of a federal agency for political
advantage; and plow on through the familiar Beltway muck of nepotism
and the funneling of campaign money into the pockets of family
members. All in a day's work for the former pest exterminator from
Sugar Land.
But of all DeLay's transgressions, the one I find most repulsive is
the way he has shamefully--and shamelessly--used charitable
organizations to fill his political coffers and boost his political
clout.
DeLay's preferred mechanism for gathering donations is the DeLay
Foundation for Kids--a charity that assists children, especially in
foster care, but which also conveniently allows lobbyists and
corporations to buy access to DeLay and his GOP cronies without having
to deal with those pesky campaign-finance laws. For instance, at a
2003 fundraiser for the DeLay Foundation for Kids, a celebrity golf
tournament held at the Ocean Reef Club in Florida, corporate sponsors
were afforded the opportunity to play golf with key Republican
lawmakers like DeLay and his ol' buddy Roy Blunt--all nominally in the
name of a good cause.
And, because the DeLay Foundation for Kids is a charity, not a
political fundraising entity (wink, wink), donations to it are
unfettered by campaign finance restrictions--the sky's the limit on
the amounts that can be donated. So while the lobbyists and corporate
mendicants get to hit the links and bend the ear of a congressman or
senator, their cost is entirely tax deductible as a charitable
donation. And, as an added bonus, the names of the donors or the
amounts they give don't have to be made public. Not surprisingly, the
Ocean Reef event (and many others just like it across the country) was
a sellout--in more ways than one.
The personal charity fundraising scheme is as cynical as it is
corrupt. And that's being charitable. For DeLay and his hard-right,
shrink-the-government crowd, charity is not a little extra something
to help those in need make ends meet. It is what, when that golden day
dawns and the governmental beast is finally starved, is supposed to
fill the void--the very fabric of the post-Big Government social
safety net.
So you'd think it would be sheltered from their rapaciousness. But
when it comes to raking in the cash, clearly nothing is sacred for
DeLay. Not even compassion.
Given this litany of scandal and mendacity, it's easy to see why
virtually every major progressive group is pushing to oust DeLay. But
as Rick Hertzberg argues in the current New Yorker, Democrats might
want to keep DeLay around "because he is so repellent. Self-righteous,
humorless, resentful, scowling, perpetually angry, he has many of the
irritating qualities of his former colleague Newt Gingrich without any
of the latter's childlike charms."
Nail the Hammer? That would be justice done. But if he manages to hang
on, a charmless Gingrich with a giant bull's-eye on his back could be
a very useful tool as Democrats are rebuilding their party for 2006.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> The original steam engine pistons may have had nothing else for
> lubrication, but a big rat could crawl through some of their
> clearances. And were they lubricated by steam, or by water condensed
> on the surfaces?
That is correct. Pistons, piston rings and piston rods operate purely
in steam and use the lubricating qualities of water to operate.
They are still running that way as you can hear at:
Bill Sornson
> NAILING THE HAMMER?
>
> By Arianna Huffington
For a royal b*tch, she's pretty hot.
(And looks MUCH better in bike shorts than jobst....@stanfordalumni.org.)
What group is this?
BS
John Dacey
Mistranslation? Perhaps Bierce had insider knowledge about the intent
of the coiner of the phrase, but the definition of "probo" leaves more
that a little room for ambiguity:
http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?probo
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Comprehensive catalogue of track equipment: online since 1996.
http://www.businesscycles.com
Benjamin Lewis
> The original steam engine pistons may have had nothing else
> for lubrication, but a big rat could crawl through some of
> their clearances. And were they lubricated by steam, or by
> water condensed on the surfaces?
I've always thought that steam *is* condensed water vapour...
--
Benjamin Lewis
Evelyn the dog, having undergone further modification, pondered the
significance of short-person behavior in pedal-depressed panchromatic
resonance and other highly ambient domains... "Arf", she said.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> The original steam engine pistons may have had nothing else for
>> lubrication, but a big rat could crawl through some of their
>> clearances. And were they lubricated by steam, or by water
>> condensed on the surfaces?
> I've always thought that steam *is* condensed water vapour...
Technically steam is the gaseous form of water and is an invisible
gas. Fog and clouds, and what you see in a hot shower is condensing
water droplets. Among steam for steam engines, we have wet and
superheat. Most steam engines run with superheated steam that is
re-heated after vaporization and this is heard in piston engines as a
sharp chuf-chuf-chuf while wet steam engines have a soft puf-puf-puf
sound. The one in the WWW is a superheat engine.
if you have sound on your system.
Benjamin Lewis
> Benjamin Lewis writes:
>
>>> The original steam engine pistons may have had nothing else for
>>> lubrication, but a big rat could crawl through some of their
>>> clearances. And were they lubricated by steam, or by water
>>> condensed on the surfaces?
>
>> I've always thought that steam *is* condensed water vapour...
>
> Technically steam is the gaseous form of water and is an invisible
> gas.
Ah -- I see both definitions in my dictionary, with the former listed as
"popular usage". I've always said "water vapour" when speaking of the
gaseous form.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>> The original steam engine pistons may have had nothing else for
>>>> lubrication, but a big rat could crawl through some of their
>>>> clearances. And were they lubricated by steam, or by water
>>>> condensed on the surfaces?
>>> I've always thought that steam *is* condensed water vapour...
>> Technically steam is the gaseous form of water and is an invisible
>> gas.
> Ah -- I see both definitions in my dictionary, with the former
> listed as "popular usage". I've always said "water vapour" when
> speaking of the gaseous form.
But did you listen to superheated steam exhaust from the smokestack?
Those of us who experienced "wet steam" appreciate the difference.
There are a lot of great sound tracks, one of SP4449 the freedom train
locomotive that has a deep throaty whistle and the loggers with geared
three cylinder drive as in:
Benjamin Lewis
> Benjamin Lewis writes:
>
>> Ah -- I see both definitions in my dictionary, with the former
>> listed as "popular usage". I've always said "water vapour" when
>> speaking of the gaseous form.
>
> But did you listen to superheated steam exhaust from the smokestack?
> Those of us who experienced "wet steam" appreciate the difference.
> There are a lot of great sound tracks, one of SP4449 the freedom train
> locomotive that has a deep throaty whistle and the loggers with geared
> three cylinder drive as in:
>
> http://steamcad.railfan.net/shay.htm
Hmm. The sound appears to be in the form of embedded realmedia, which I
guess I don't have my browser set up for at the moment.
Does the superheated steam have a different density than the "wet", or is
there some other characteristic that makes it sound different?