Escape sinking car homemade tool

[Thomas]

People died this week just going into an underpass under a bridge.
https://youtu.be/AXMI5M_Yhqw

They make pro tools to cut the seatbelt & break the window.
But what home-made tool is handy and easily made for the purpose?

[Ed Pawlowski]

Best tool is your brain. Don't drive into deep water. Or fast moving
water more than a couple of inches.

[knuttle]

Whatever tool you do use to break the window, make sure it's not aluminum!
https://youtu.be/EpsEwlrJI4g?t=120

[Paul in Houston TX]

Homemade... well, you could get a 10" long piece of 1.5" x 1/4" steel
flat stock, grind saw teeth into it, then heat with your torch and oil
quench it to harden the teeth, then carbide shape the teeth while
running water over it, then hone. You would have a saw capable of
cutting the belt and also capable of breaking the windows. If you make
one end pointy and wrap duct tape around the other end it could also be
used for self defense. Spray it with iron phosphate to keep it from
rusting.

Seems to me it would be easier to undo the seat belt buckle, put the
window down, and open the door. Knowing how to swim would be helpful.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <sq7js1$rgs$1...@dont-email.me>, Pa...@Houston.Texas says...

>
> Seems to me it would be easier to undo the seat belt buckle, put the
> window down, and open the door. Knowing how to swim would be helpful.
>
>
>

With most cars now having electrical windows and door locks that
activate about 5 or 10 mph you stand a good chance of electrical failure
when the car is under water.

[rbowman]

https://www.tomarskabars.com/Coll-Boot-Knife_INFO.html

Multipurpose tool clipped to the passenger seat for easy access.
Carjacking isn't a big hobby around here but it would serve to stitch
one of those up.

[knuttle]

On 12/25/2021 12:19 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

> Seems to me it would be easier to undo the seat belt buckle, put the
> window down, and open the door. Knowing how to swim would be helpful.

In some cases, you can't undo the seatbelt.
You can't open the door in almost all cases.
And once the water presses against the window, you can't open the window.

For example I've watched the videos (they abound on the net) where even the
safety diver in the back seat had to cut his seatbelt when the car flipped
upside down (seatbelts are apparently not designed to work when you're
pressing against them upside down).

I've watched muliple videos where they tested how soon you have to start to
open the car door, where it's essentially immediately upon hitting the
water. After that, it's a thousand pounds of pressure against the door,
which nobody can force no matter how strong you think you may be.

The only other time you can open the door is after the pressure equalizes,
which means the air is essentially long gone, and even then, if the water is
deep, you'll never make it to the surface alive.

Likewise with the windows. While the electrical system may remain (as long
as you leave the key in the ignition), there is a thousand pounds of
pressure against the window also.

The paradoxical thought process is that you have to open the window BEFORE
the water gets to that level, which is what most people do not want to do
(because they feel it will let in more water - which it will).

The standard recommendation is SWO
S = seatbelt
W = window
O = get out

Swimming is optional.

[Rod Speed]

Paul in Houston TX <Pa...@Houston.Texas> wrote

Not always possible with modern electrically driven windows with the car
full of water.

> and open the door. Knowing how to swim would be helpful.

And knowing how to deal with crocodiles and sharks.

[Michael Trew]

True, one of the reasons that I like my old cars. I consider manual
crank windows to be a feature.

[Rod Speed]

knuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> Paul in Houston TX wrote

>> Seems to me it would be easier to undo the seat belt buckle, put the
>> window down, and open the door. Knowing how to swim would be helpful.

> In some cases, you can't undo the seatbelt.
> You can't open the door in almost all cases.
> And once the water presses against the window, you can't open the window.

That’s not true. The reality is that once the car has started to fill with
water, the electrically operated windows can no longer be opened.

> For example I've watched the videos (they abound on the net) where even
> the safety diver in the back seat had to cut his seatbelt when the car
> flipped upside down (seatbelts are apparently not designed to work when
> you're pressing against them upside down).

> I've watched muliple videos where they tested how soon you have to start
> to open the car door, where it's essentially immediately upon hitting the
> water. After that, it's a thousand pounds of pressure against the door,
> which nobody can force no matter how strong you think you may be.

> The only other time you can open the door is after the pressure equalizes,
> which means the air is essentially long gone, and even then, if the water
> is deep, you'll never make it to the surface alive.

Don’t buy that one either.

> Likewise with the windows. While the electrical system may remain (as long
> as you leave the key in the ignition), there is a thousand pounds of
> pressure against the window also.

But that doesn’t stop it sliding. The problem is that
with the car half full of water, the eclectic motor no
longer works, particularly with salt water.

> The paradoxical thought process is that you have to open the window BEFORE
> the water gets to that level, which is what most people do not want to do
> (because they feel it will let in more water - which it will).

But so does smashing the window with that tool.

> The standard recommendation is SWO
> S = seatbelt
> W = window
> O = get out

Easier said than down with the window and the car half full of water.

> Swimming is optional.

[Ken Olson]

On 12/25/2021 10:38 AM, Thomas wrote:

Buck knife for the belt, automatic center punch for the door window.

--
ÄLSKAR - Fänga Dagen

[Scott Dorsey]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That’s not true. The reality is that once the car has started to fill with
>water, the electrically operated windows can no longer be opened.

This is why, for safety, I always keep a full oxyacetylene rig set for
cutting in the car with me. As long as the water doesn't get above the
level of the flint, this is a reasonable safety precaution that everyone
should take.

Of course, you may find yourself in a situation where that's not enough.
That's why, for safety, I always keep my trunk full of dynamite because
you never know when you might need it for moving obstacles on the road.

Safety is important! Think of the children!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul in Houston TX]

Are the locks and window motors computer controlled in modern cars?
In my 06 Kia they are not comp controlled.
Motors and batteries work just fine submerged in water for a while.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 25 Dec 2021 11:28:33 -0500, knuttle

<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/25/2021 7:50 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> On 12/25/2021 10:38 AM, Thomas wrote:
>>> People died this week just going into an underpass under a bridge.
>>> https://youtu.be/AXMI5M_Yhqw

Very sad.

Power windows often work even when the car is submweged or for a little
while after the engine is off. But I woudln't wait until then to check.

>>> They make pro tools to cut the seatbelt & break the window.
>>>
>>> But what home-made tool is handy and easily made for the purpose?
>>
>> Best tool is your brain. Don't drive into deep water. Or fast moving
>> water more than a couple of inches.
>
>Whatever tool you do use to break the window, make sure it's not aluminum!
>https://youtu.be/EpsEwlrJI4g?t=120

Amazing that they would sell something like this. Isn't aluminum as
expensive as steel? Maybe they had some left-over aluminum.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 25 Dec 2021 22:01:27 -0600, Paul in Houston

TX <Pa...@Houston.Texas> wrote:

>Are the locks and window motors computer controlled in modern cars?

I'm not sure I have a modern car. It's a 2005.

>In my 06 Kia they are not comp controlled.

There you go. Actually, I think my windows will go up or down for maybe
30 seconds after the key is out of the ignition. Hadn't thought about
it, but it might be the same time until the headlights go off.

So the computer is making them work longer.

>Motors and batteries work just fine submerged in water for a while.

Yes, if the ignition is still on, I'm sure you have 2 or 3 times as
long.

Are people saying that the sideways pressure of the water forces the
window against its channel and that's why it won't go down?

[Bob F]

Some are.

[knuttle]

On 12/25/2021 11:42 PM, Bob F wrote:

>> Are people saying that the sideways pressure of the water forces the
>> window against its channel and that's why it won't go down?
>
> Some are.

It was in the videos so look for them but you can think about it.

You already agree there's about a thousand pounds against the door.
Why wouldn't there be about a thousand pounds against the window?
(the actual pressure depends on the area - but go with the idea)

Certainly the same pressure per square inch against the door is against the
windows once the water gets to that level so the question is really what
happens to your car windows when you force them with appreciable force
sideways?

I don't know the answer but the expert's suggestion is don't wait until it
actually happens to find that out as these people may very well have done
this week.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 26 Dec 2021 10:40:23 -0500, knuttle

<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/25/2021 11:42 PM, Bob F wrote:
>
>>> Are people saying that the sideways pressure of the water forces the
>>> window against its channel and that's why it won't go down?
>>
>> Some are.
>
>It was in the videos so look for them but you can think about it.
>
>You already agree there's about a thousand pounds against the door.

It's not that I doubt this. I just want to understand what's being
said.

Where i go there isn't much chance of getting caught like this. I can't
think of any underpasses that dip below the normal street level. There
are streams that flood, but I don't commute anymore so I probably
wouldn't be out those days.

My brother once drove through some water and damaged his car that way.
Don't know details. maybe he just got the ignition system too wet.

>Why wouldn't there be about a thousand pounds against the window?
>(the actual pressure depends on the area - but go with the idea)

It's not that the pressure would be lower but that a very well made
window would be able to slide down even under pressure, wheels at the
bottom, facing outward, instead of glides or maybe nothing. It's
certainly possible to make a window like that if they tried, but I don't
think they try, and I don't blame them for that, given how rarely it's
an issue, one in 30 million per year?

>Certainly the same pressure per square inch against the door is against the
>windows once the water gets to that level so the question is really what
>happens to your car windows when you force them with appreciable force
>sideways?
>
>I don't know the answer but the expert's suggestion is don't wait until it
>actually happens

I'll get back to you. If I stop posting suddenly, check the weather
here.

[Bob F]

On 12/26/2021 7:40 AM, knuttle wrote:
> On 12/25/2021 11:42 PM, Bob F wrote:
>
>>> Are people saying that the sideways pressure of the water forces the
>>> window against its channel and that's why it won't go down?
>>
>> Some are.
>
> It was in the videos so look for them but you can think about it.
>
> You already agree there's about a thousand pounds against the door.
> Why wouldn't there be about a thousand pounds against the window?
> (the actual pressure depends on the area - but go with the idea)
>
> Certainly the same pressure per square inch against the door is against the
> windows once the water gets to that level so the question is really what
> happens to your car windows when you force them with appreciable force
> sideways?

Unless the car is upside down, the pressure (PSI) on the windows will
certainly be less than on the doors.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <sqa7kb$3n1$2...@dont-email.me>, bobn...@gmail.com says...

>
> Unless the car is upside down, the pressure (PSI) on the windows will
> certainly be less than on the doors.
>
>
>

It will be less on the windows than on the doors because of the area.
Say a car window has about 2 sqft of surface. That is 288 sqin for the
window. If only 1 pound of pressure per sqin that is 288 pounds of
pressure. If 5 feet under water it will be just over 2 lb per sqin.

So you have about 500 pounds on the window if just slightly under water.
If around 10 feet under it will be around 1000 pounds of pressure in the
window trying to push in on you .

[Bob F]

1 foot of water = 0.43352750192825 pounds/square inch

It will be less on the windows because the windows are under less
pressure than the doors, because the doors are deeper under water.

If the water is up to the windows, the pressure on the windows is 0, but
the pressure at the BOTTOM of the door is about 1 PSI. when the water
reaches the top of the window, the pressure is 0 at the top of the
window, and maybe .6 PSI at the bottom of the window, and maybe 2 PSI at
the bottom if the door.

Water inside the car lessens the total force on the door and window. If
the interior water is as deep as the exterior water, the net force is 0.

If the car is submerged, breaking that window is going to hit you in the
face HARD.

[The Real Bev]

Not according to Mythbusters, at least for a while. A window-breaking
device would definitely be useful, though. Just In Case. And DO NOT
KEEP IT IN YOUR TRUNK TOOLBOX!

I watched the video to figure out how this could have happened. No
information other than total stupidity. You get stuck in an underpass.
You see the water rising. You open the window or door and climb out
onto the hood or roof or swim out of the underpass. IT'S A FUCKING
POND, not a raging river.

You DON'T just sit in your car and wait to drown.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Do not try to solve all life's problems at once -- learn to
dread each day as it comes." -- Donald Kaul

[The Real Bev]

On 12/26/2021 10:31 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 12/25/2021 09:41 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>> In article <sq7js1$rgs$1...@dont-email.me>, Pa...@Houston.Texas says...
>>>
>>> Seems to me it would be easier to undo the seat belt buckle, put the
>>> window down, and open the door. Knowing how to swim would be helpful.
>>
>> With most cars now having electrical windows and door locks that
>> activate about 5 or 10 mph you stand a good chance of electrical failure
>> when the car is under water.
>
> Not according to Mythbusters, at least for a while.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YaMEW30bv4

[Bob F]

I bet this would handle the window problem.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Johnson-8-oz-Steel-Plumb-Bob-08/100184170?source=shoppingads&locale=en-US

[Rod Speed]

micky <NONONO...@fmguy.com> wrote
> knuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

>> Bob F wrote

>>>> Are people saying that the sideways pressure of the water forces
>>>> the window against its channel and that's why it won't go down?
>>>
>>> Some are.
>>
>>It was in the videos so look for them but you can think about it.
>>
>>You already agree there's about a thousand pounds against the door.
>
> It's not that I doubt this. I just want to understand what's being
> said.
>
> Where i go there isn't much chance of getting caught like this. I can't
> think of any underpasses that dip below the normal street level. There
> are streams that flood, but I don't commute anymore so I probably
> wouldn't be out those days.
>
> My brother once drove through some water and damaged his car that way.
> Don't know details. maybe he just got the ignition system too wet.

The air intake to the engine can be too low in some cars
so you can get water into the engine and that can fuck
the engine completely when it breaks a con rod etc.
One of the french cars is that stupidly designed.

Our SUVs, what we call 4WDs have snorkels to stop that happening.
https://imgk.timesnownews.com/story/Safari_snorkel_1200.png?tr=w-600,h-450,fo-auto

>>Why wouldn't there be about a thousand pounds against the window?
>>(the actual pressure depends on the area - but go with the idea)

> It's not that the pressure would be lower but that a very well made
> window would be able to slide down even under pressure, wheels at
> the bottom, facing outward, instead of glides or maybe nothing. It's
> certainly possible to make a window like that if they tried, but I don't
> think they try, and I don't blame them for that, given how rarely it's
> an issue, one in 30 million per year?

The SUVs often are designed that way.

We usually get one fool or other washed away in each major flood.

>> Certainly the same pressure per square inch against the door
>> is against the windows once the water gets to that level so
>> the question is really what happens to your car windows
>> when you force them with appreciable force sideways?

>> I don't know the answer but the expert's suggestion
>> is don't wait until it actually happens

> I'll get back to you. If I stop posting
> suddenly, check the weather here.

I'll have water wings delivered by drone.
https://www.infantswim.com.au/tag/water-wings/

Why are you so ugly, and stop grinning, this isn't a laughing matter.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 26 Dec 2021 11:18:55 -0800, Bob F

You can't make those go sideways. They only go up and down.

Mostly down.

[Blocko]

Bob F <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote

This would work a lot better, particularly for a woman or kid.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Husky-6-in-Automatic-Spring-Loaded-Center-Hole-Punch-70079H/302880581

[Bob F]

Ooooo! And it has a lifetime warranty, so if it doesn't work you can
take it back and get your money back.

I think I should have one of those in my punch bin. Probably at the
bottom, since I haven't seen it in a long time.

[knuttle]

On 12/26/2021 12:30 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

> So you have about 500 pounds on the window if just slightly under water.
> If around 10 feet under it will be around 1000 pounds of pressure in the
> window trying to push in on you .

This one tells you when the window is jammed against the door frame
https://youtu.be/QWXF4h5wAaI?t=50
where they say it's almost impossible to get the window to roll down.

As you have calculated the pressure on any given window will depend only on
the depth of the water and the area of the window glass.
1 foot = 200 pounds of pressure
2 feet = 400 pounds of pressure
3 feet = 600 pounds of pressure
4 feet = 800 pounds of pressure
https://youtu.be/rdqrduxK9To?t=755

Looking for where I saw that the experts said the pressure is preventing the
glass from opening I can run this search just now.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=escaping+car+underwater

Here it says there's upwards of 1000 pounds holding the door closed.
https://youtu.be/rdqrduxK9To?t=489

Here the tester said "I would have been dead" trying to open the door.
https://youtu.be/rdqrduxK9To?t=620

Found it!

Here is a chart showing water pressure "jams" the window against the rails.
https://youtu.be/rdqrduxK9To?t=745

[knuttle]

On 12/26/2021 1:03 PM, Bob F wrote:

> Water inside the car lessens the total force on the door and window. If
> the interior water is as deep as the exterior water, the net force is 0.

This guy says there are 400 vehicle related drownings in the USA every year.
https://youtu.be/rdqrduxK9To?t=130

These guys get out in an amazingly quick time.
https://youtu.be/fymjbkGSta8?t=85

Mythbusters had a tough time getting out upside down & effectively died.
https://youtu.be/QIx719_oer0?t=125

Here you can see Adam's feet NOT breaking the window time & again.
https://youtu.be/QIx719_oer0?t=160

Paradoxically, this guy was taught to let the water get to the window
https://youtu.be/ZJ7k3cR-ob4?t=140
At half way up the window he was able to open the door surprisingly.

Yet Adam tested it such that he couldn't open the door until way later.
https://youtu.be/2YaMEW30bv4?t=30

In fact, Adam "died" trying to open the door so that's paradoxical.
https://youtu.be/2YaMEW30bv4?t=104

This reporter doesn't know the difference between air & oxygen.
https://youtu.be/gUD53NZ03zM?t=115

Given the conflicting information, I'd trust mythbusters over that one video
that says you can open the door when the water gets halfway up the window.

[Bob F]

On 12/26/2021 6:54 PM, knuttle wrote:
> On 12/26/2021 1:03 PM, Bob F wrote:
>
>> Water inside the car lessens the total force on the door and window.
>> If the interior water is as deep as the exterior water, the net force
>> is 0.
>
> This guy says there are 400 vehicle related drownings in the USA every
> year.
> https://youtu.be/rdqrduxK9To?t=130
>
> These guys get out in an amazingly quick time.
> https://youtu.be/fymjbkGSta8?t=85
>
> Mythbusters had a tough time getting out upside down & effectively died.
> https://youtu.be/QIx719_oer0?t=125
>
> Here you can see Adam's feet NOT breaking the window time & again.
> https://youtu.be/QIx719_oer0?t=160
>
> Paradoxically, this guy was taught to let the water get to the window
> https://youtu.be/ZJ7k3cR-ob4?t=140
> At half way up the window he was able to open the door surprisingly.

I suspect that is because he had a wide open tailgate, allowing air to
quickly escape, and water to enter quickly equalizing the pressure. A
nose heavy closed up car may not behave the same.

[rbowman]

On 12/26/2021 07:53 PM, knuttle wrote:
> As you have calculated the pressure on any given window will depend only on
> the depth of the water and the area of the window glass.
> 1 foot = 200 pounds of pressure 2 feet = 400 pounds of pressure
> 3 feet = 600 pounds of pressure 4 feet = 800 pounds of pressure
> https://youtu.be/rdqrduxK9To?t=755

Reminds me of a problem from Calculus 101.... The problem that is, not
the solution. I haven't used calculus in so long I doubt I could come up
with a valid answer.

[knuttle]

On 12/27/2021 1:44 AM, rbowman wrote:

> Reminds me of a problem from Calculus 101.... The problem that is, not
> the solution. I haven't used calculus in so long I doubt I could come up
> with a valid answer.

Calculus is good for figuring out the volume of fluid in a tank or pool.

My kids learned the essence of calculus differently than we did.
Mine learned it from YouTube.
Not because they wanted to.
But because I made them.
And YouTube was how.

You can find a million "formulaic" Calculus videos which "teach" calculus
the way we learned it which was just a series of rules to the game (none of
which made any sense to me but which only arrived at the correct answer).
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=learn+calculus

If you add "+3Blue1Brown" to that search, you get real learning, IMHO.
https://www.3blue1brown.com/

I recommend something like this to get back up to speed on calculus.
https://youtu.be/WUvTyaaNkzM?t=39

[knuttle]

On 12/26/2021 10:24 PM, Bob F wrote:

> I suspect that is because he had a wide open tailgate, allowing air to
> quickly escape, and water to enter quickly equalizing the pressure. A
> nose heavy closed up car may not behave the same.

Thank you for noticing that wide open tailgate which I had not noticed.

It's good you told me that because it bothered me that he had such an easy
time opening the door when the window was half submerged, and yet the
mythbusters would have died waiting for the pressure to equalize.

In a way they're doing a disservice to people telling them to wait to that
point as EVERYONE else said get that seatbelt off and break the window as
soon as you can.

One video had simulated children in the back which did give the advice to
get the older child out the same broken window first, as the older child
could then help out a bit. Younger children last.

Oh, and don't call 911.

I've listened to EVERY car-drowning 911 call I could find on the net where
it's just sad that the 911 operators used to tell people to wait for help.

Most of the people seem to think that opening the window will let more water
in, which is true. What they don't seem to know is what one of the videos I
saw showed which is the water comes in faster in the end than in the start.

So they get lulled into a sense of safety because the water starts seeping
in slowly but as the car sinks, so does the pressure of the water wanting to
come inside.

In effect that last foot of water comes in an instant while the first foot
of water took some time so it's easy to miscalculate how much time you have.

[rbowman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_Made_Easy

I've got a copy of that for light reading. It's over 100 years old but
calculus hasn't changed much :) He uses a lot of visuals like the last
video, except they're ink on paper. That's my favorite medium; my mind
wanders during spoken presentations. The technique reminded me of
Plato's 'Meno'. You already know how to do this, you just don't remember
it yet.


We used Thomas and his first edition came out in 1952 and is in the
14th edition now. I forget the author of the differential equations text.

I haven't had a use for it for many years but I've started playing
around with Arduinos and things that move around in the real world so I
guessing I'll get back into it sooner or later if for nothing more than
implementing PID controls in software.

[knuttle]

On 12/27/2021 1:29 PM, rbowman wrote:

> We used Thomas and his first edition came out in 1952 and is in the
> 14th edition now. I forget the author of the differential equations text.

I used to read my father's physics books where I was amazed that in the
twenties they taught math the way we currently teach high school students.

I loved them.
Because I could understand them.

My college calculus and physics textbooks just gave us the equations for the
most part and then we had to learn how the game worked of applying them.

But in the olden days, they didn't do it that way even in college textbooks.

It may be they didn't regularly teach calculus in high school in those days.
Maybe that's why calculus started from the basics even in college textbooks.

> I haven't had a use for it for many years but I've started playing
> around with Arduinos and things that move around in the real world so I
> guessing I'll get back into it sooner or later if for nothing more than
> implementing PID controls in software.

You hit the nail on the head as to what I think is wrong with the way math
is taught, both at the college level and at the high school level today.

They hand a high school kid a test comprised of twenty five quadratic
equations (or whatever) that need to be solved (mechanically) to pass.

Yet not a single one of those equations was stated as a real world problem.
So they are just meaningless equations to these poor high school kids.
Why should they care about solving a bunch of meaningless equations?
I don't blame them for not being at all interested in playing the game.

The kids who excel are either those who just care about getting good grades,
or, more usefully, those who feel that the teachers must know something that
the students don't know in that they'll NEED this skill in the future.

Well, I took calculus in college. I never needed it. Did you?
(Of course I'm not a mechanical engineer or a rocket scientist but neither
are most people. Did you ever really NEED calculus in your entire life?)

At least physics is taught as problem sets.

[Peeler]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:29:33 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_Made_Easy
>
> I've got a copy of that for light reading. It's over 100 years old but
> calculus hasn't changed much :) He uses a lot of visuals like the last
> video, except they're ink on paper. That's my favorite medium; my mind
> wanders during spoken presentations.

Your "mind"? What about your endlessly meandering gob, senile gossip? <BG>

Check sig!

--
Yet more of the very interesting senile blather by lowbrowwoman:
"My family loaded me into a '51 Chevy and drove from NY to Seattle and
back in '52. I'm alive. The Chevy had a painted steel dashboard with two
little hand prints worn down to the primer because I liked to stand up
and lean on it to see where we were going."
MID: <j2kuc1...@mid.individual.net>

[rbowman]

On 12/27/2021 11:42 AM, knuttle wrote:
> On 12/27/2021 1:29 PM, rbowman wrote:
>
>> We used Thomas and his first edition came out in 1952 and is in the
>> 14th edition now. I forget the author of the differential equations text.
>
> I used to read my father's physics books where I was amazed that in the
> twenties they taught math the way we currently teach high school students.
>
> I loved them.
> Because I could understand them.
>
> My college calculus and physics textbooks just gave us the equations for
> the
> most part and then we had to learn how the game worked of applying them.
>
> But in the olden days, they didn't do it that way even in college
> textbooks.
>
> It may be they didn't regularly teach calculus in high school in those
> days.
> Maybe that's why calculus started from the basics even in college
> textbooks.

The high school I went to had an 'enriched curriculum' program. In the
summer between my junior and senior years I took a linear equations
course in preparation for calculus during my senior year. The course was
in the afternoon after the normal school schedule and was taught by a
professor from RPI. The high school was almost adjacent to the RPI
campus so it was common to have interactions like that. The text was
Thomas, which was what was used at RPI.

Calculus definitely was not part of the normal high school curriculum.
The standard senior level math course was spherical trig. In retrospect,
since I do a lot of GIS work, spherical trig would have been more
useful. This was 1964.

After graduation, I entered RPI and had a second dose of the aptly named
math professor, Dis Maly. His wife had taught the linear equations
course and was great; his droning could put a hyperactive 6 year old to
sleep.

>
> Well, I took calculus in college. I never needed it. Did you?
> (Of course I'm not a mechanical engineer or a rocket scientist but neither
> are most people. Did you ever really NEED calculus in your entire life?)

Not really. The concepts are valuable but as far as sitting down with
pencil and paper and solving anything no. You can know what a FFT is and
even how to program the solution without delving into the notation. When
I roll up my extension cord I realize that if I crank the spool at a
constant rpm the speed at which the cat will need to chase the loose end
increases as a function of the circumference of the wire on the spool
but neither I nor the cat ever sat down and worked it out.

>
> At least physics is taught as problem sets.

Physics at RPI was a two year course. We used Resnick & Halliday since
Robert Resnick was a professor there. I consider that the most valuable
college course I took. While I eventually migrated to software from
hardware I can't say FORTRAN IV proved to be all that useful although
there still is a lot of Fortran lurking around. Fortunately it has
progressed past Hollerith cards. Being a lousy typist I do much better
with a decent programming editor.

[Peeler]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 12:34:44 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> The high school I went to had

Oh, NO! It starts again...

--
Yet more of the very interesting senile blather by lowbrowwoman:

"I save my fries quota for one of the local food trucks that offers
poutine every now and then. If you're going for a coronary might as well
do it right."
MID: <ivdi4g...@mid.individual.net>

[knuttle]

On 12/27/2021 2:34 PM, rbowman wrote:

> The high school I went to had an 'enriched curriculum' program. In the
> summer between my junior and senior years I took a linear equations
> course in preparation for calculus during my senior year. The course was
> in the afternoon after the normal school schedule and was taught by a
> professor from RPI. The high school was almost adjacent to the RPI
> campus so it was common to have interactions like that. The text was
> Thomas, which was what was used at RPI.

Brrrrrre.... RPI. Why not change the world? LOL
I went to school in a warmer clime that didn't care to change the world! :)
However I like that you also enjoy reading older texts such as Thomas is.

My high school taught the following, which was typical in the day I think.
Freshman = Algebra 1 (required for graduation - dumbshits took it later)
Sophomore = Geometry first half (required for college prep)
Sophomore = Trig the second half (required for college prep)
Junior = Algebra 2 (required for college prep)
Senior = Calculus (recommended for college prep in the science field)

So I took all of that, but I honestly can't say I remember much of it.

I had to take Calculus again in college but only one year of it as I was in
the biological sciences so we didn't need that (we took statistics though).

What I remember is the front and back of the textbook had a long list in a
table of integrals, which, if memorized, was extremely important for passing
the test. But, of course they were easily best forgotten soon thereafter.

About the only real takeaway was that an integral is the area under the
curve and a derivative is the slope of that curve at any given point.

> Calculus definitely was not part of the normal high school curriculum.
> The standard senior level math course was spherical trig. In retrospect,
> since I do a lot of GIS work, spherical trig would have been more
> useful. This was 1964.

I've been studying the true source of gravity, which according to Minkowski
and others (Marcel Grossman, Einstein, Christoffel, Ricci and more) is due
to the geodesics inherent in spherical trig as I understand it anyway.

You might be able to help me as I'm trying to learn how to create geospatial
PDFs for my grandchildren who are planning a week long hike into the
wilderness which spans multiple USGS quadrangles.

Unlike us, they shun paper maps so I'm trying to create a specific map for
them with the gpx track on the map and the map being an amalgam of
geospacial PDFs so that their smartphones can show them where they are on
that custom geospacial PDF.

I can tell you more about what I need if you're interested but it's kind of
off topic for this newsgroup where it's more for the freeware groups since
each kid is expected to download and use the maps and the map software on
their Android or Apple phones.

> After graduation, I entered RPI and had a second dose of the aptly named
> math professor, Dis Maly. His wife had taught the linear equations
> course and was great; his droning could put a hyperactive 6 year old to
> sleep.

You may have a fantastic background in better understanding the true source
of gravity, which, it seems to be, is due to the curvature in 4 dimensions
of what looks like straight lines to us in three dimensions, and where we're
moving along those four dimensions at only one speed - the speed of light.

>> Well, I took calculus in college. I never needed it. Did you?
>> (Of course I'm not a mechanical engineer or a rocket scientist but neither
>> are most people. Did you ever really NEED calculus in your entire life?)
>
> Not really. The concepts are valuable but as far as sitting down with
> pencil and paper and solving anything no. You can know what a FFT is and
> even how to program the solution without delving into the notation.

The only thing I learned from college about fourier transforms was that if
you took any periodic signal, it would devolve down to a discrete set of
sine waves. That was interesting (I remember the "Gibb's Effect" though,
which threw a kink in the math - but only until final exams as I promptly
forgot about that until this very moment - too many decades to care later).

I've never needed an FFT nor integrals or even derivatives other than to
know the first deriviative is speed, the second is acceleration, etc.

When I need to calculate a volume, I break it down into sections of that
volume. It's rare you really have the equation anyway (aka the function f(x)
to do the proper math). I'm told Desmos and Geogebra will help though.

> When
> I roll up my extension cord I realize that if I crank the spool at a
> constant rpm the speed at which the cat will need to chase the loose end
> increases as a function of the circumference of the wire on the spool
> but neither I nor the cat ever sat down and worked it out.

:)

Likewise, the air resistance goes up with the square of the speed, I think,
which tells me the faster I go, the worse my incremental gas mileage will
be.

On a note about the extension cord, what they should teach in high school is
how to wrap up a hundred or two hundred footer without kinks. Yes, I know
they loop it in a special way. But you have to practice it.

Seems to me we can start a thread on what _should_ be taught to kids that we
old farts learned (or wish we had learned) when we were younguns.

>> At least physics is taught as problem sets.
>
> Physics at RPI was a two year course.

Mine was for the bio sci majors so it was only a year of baby physics.
We never got past the classical physics for example.

> We used Resnick & Halliday since
> Robert Resnick was a professor there. I consider that the most valuable
> college course I took. While I eventually migrated to software from
> hardware I can't say FORTRAN IV proved to be all that useful although
> there still is a lot of Fortran lurking around.

I took Fortran before IV existed. :)
Cobol too.
Yuck.

Error 45.
That's all you get.

IBM JCL.
Yuck.

Punched cards though. That was fancy stuff.
Winchester drives too. Maybe 16KB of memory was allotted to us?
Don't remember.

Heady stuff that was in the days of the raised refrigerated floors and
punched cards and long feed folded printer paper printouts in the bins with
your login on the first page all alphabetically sorted by the "operators."

> Fortunately it has
> progressed past Hollerith cards. Being a lousy typist I do much better
> with a decent programming editor.

Ah. You missed my typing class with IBM selectrics in college.
Fancy stuff they were.
Heavy as a boat anchor.
Spinning ball and all that.

All girls.
Except me.

Whooo hoo.
I haven't had it that good (male to female ratio anyway) since then.
Sigh.

Anyway, maybe we should start a thread on what kids _should_ be taught.
Also if you can help me on my map problem for the grandkids, I'd love that.

[knuttle]

On 12/25/2021 11:36 PM, micky wrote:

> I think my windows will go up or down for maybe
> 30 seconds after the key is out of the ignition.

Even with manual roll down windows, this says once the water is at the upper
level of the window, it will be impossible to roll the window down.
https://youtu.be/oEl3ti0WFY0?t=284

They even said that you need to get out of the car even if you had to wait
for it to equalize where if you're going to die, at least your last breath
will have more oxygen in it than before, and maybe, just maybe, if you
follow the bubbles & float to the surface, someone may resuscitate you.

[rbowman]

On 12/27/2021 03:47 PM, knuttle wrote:

> On 12/27/2021 2:34 PM, rbowman wrote:
>

> Brrrrrre.... RPI. Why not change the world? LOL
> I went to school in a warmer clime that didn't care to change the world! :)
> However I like that you also enjoy reading older texts such as Thomas is.

Another college on my short list was Clarkson in Potsdam NY. My father
and I drove up this time of year and the last dry pavement we saw was in
Lake George. The freshman dorms were a couple of miles from the campus.
I took a pass on that one. Troy was bad enough.

>
> I had to take Calculus again in college but only one year of it as I was
> in the biological sciences so we didn't need that (we took statistics
> though).

I took statistics. 8AM class. Boring. I haven't cared much for
statistics since. The first two years were the same for everyone. After
that I could mix in some more interesting stuff from the psych
department. Not shrinky stuff. The department head was an old school
behaviorist so it was mostly physiological, sensation and perception,
and so forth. I was about 15 years early and in the wrong place for
cognitive science.

> What I remember is the front and back of the textbook had a long list in
> a table of integrals, which, if memorized, was extremely important for
> passing the test. But, of course they were easily best forgotten soon
> thereafter.

That was diff e... I took it as an elective in my senior year and had
better things to do than go to class. A friend who knew the TA had a bet
on whether I would pass. The TA figured no way since I was seldom seen,
but my friend won the bet. Intense cram session, take the final, flush
it all from my brain.

> You might be able to help me as I'm trying to learn how to create
> geospatial PDFs for my grandchildren who are planning a week long hike
> into the wilderness which spans multiple USGS quadrangles.

I've never worked with pdf's. For display purposes we use browser based
maps, mainly ESRI although I've worked with Google and Mapbox/Leaflet.
They all work about the same. The basemap consists of 256x256 png tiles
for the area and zoom level of interest. Once that's established You can
create layers on top of the base and create graphics, either lines,
polygons, or points. For a route I load a GeoJSON file and create a line
graphic from the points.

The tiles are georeferenced to Web Mercator, which is essentially WGS84.
You've probably found something similar to

https://www.sco.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/using_geospatial_pdfs_v2.0.pdf

From a quick search you can export GeoPDF from ArcMap but ESRI tools
are pricey. otoh, QGIS is free.

https://www.cadlinecommunity.co.uk/hc/en-us/articles/360003823717-QGIS-Creating-a-GeoPDF

That talks about creating a GeoPDF but doesn't go into the particulars
of what he used for the basemap, probably OSM, and point/line layers.
Presumably you can load GeoPDF rasters, stitch them together, create the
route, and export the whole thing.

There are also GDAL/OGR tools to deal with GeoPDFs but they're not for
the faint of heart.

> I can tell you more about what I need if you're interested but it's kind
> of off topic for this newsgroup where it's more for the freeware groups
> since each kid is expected to download and use the maps and the map
> software on their Android or Apple phones.

You might poke around http://qgisforum.com/forum/index QGIS isn't super
intuitive but neither is ArcDesktop or ArcGIS Pro. The difference is
about $5000.

> Likewise, the air resistance goes up with the square of the speed, I
> think, which tells me the faster I go, the worse my incremental gas
> mileage will be.

And power is proportional to the cube of velocity... Misbegotten youth
messing around with cars. The interstate speed limit in this state is
80 and the Toyota gets thirsty at that speed. The bikes aren't much
better. Less frontal area but they have a drag coefficient like a barn
door.

> Mine was for the bio sci majors so it was only a year of baby physics.
> We never got past the classical physics for example.

The fourth semester was quantuum physics where it started to get weird.

> I took Fortran before IV existed. :)
> Cobol too.
> Yuck.

I've managed to miss Cobol completely. Fortran was viewed as an
engineering tool similar to a slide rule or analog computer. I don't
think they really saw programming as a career path. A couple of my
friends who were the nerds with the op code cheat sheet in their shirt
pockets dropped out and got real jobs.

> Punched cards though. That was fancy stuff. Winchester drives too. Maybe
> 16KB of memory was allotted to us?
> Don't remember.

RPI had ties to IBM so they got a System 360/30 hot off the assembly line:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/360_Model_30

16KB sounds about right. For matrix operations you had to write partial
products to tape, rewind, take another pass, rinse and repeat. I thought
it sucked. I really didn't get interested until about 10 years later
when microprocessors started replacing relay or TTL logic in industrial
systems.

> Heady stuff that was in the days of the raised refrigerated floors and
> punched cards and long feed folded printer paper printouts in the bins
> with your login on the first page all alphabetically sorted by the
> "operators."

Ah, the god-like operators... When I was there the computer was in s
nondescript new brick building but then they did it right:

http://media.bizj.us/view/img/9353382/voorhees-computing-center-architecture-id-4-2016-18*1200xx3372-1897-0-143.jpg

They'd bought St. Joseph's Seminary property in '58 and that was the
chapel. It was the library when I was there but they tore down the main
building and built a new library on the site. Now you can go in and
light a candle to St. Leibowitz.

> Ah. You missed my typing class with IBM selectrics in college.
> Fancy stuff they were.
> Heavy as a boat anchor. Spinning ball and all that.

In high school the business and shop kids tool Spanish and Typing. The
college entrance type took Latin and some other stuff. Spanish and
typing would have been much more useful to me.

My brother who was somewhat older and I and the rocket scientist in the
family wouldn't know what to do with a typewriter if he fell over it. In
his day engineers had secretaries to handle that sort of thing.

> Anyway, maybe we should start a thread on what kids _should_ be taught.
> Also if you can help me on my map problem for the grandkids, I'd love that.

Critical thinking would be a good start but that would require a change
of direction and the realization that many kids aren't equipped to
handle it.

I very briefly taught math and science in junior high. The system used
homogeneous grouping for the classes, A through D, with D standing for
dumb. The same syllabus was used regardless. The A kids could grasp the
sexagesimal Babylonian number system, more or less. The D kids were
seriously in need of learning the decimal system so they could make
change at Mickey D's.

From what I understand today the syllabus is designed for the D level.

[Peeler]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 18:51:53 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

<FLUSH another huge load of the usual idiotic and entirely off topic senile
blather largely unread>

--
Gossiping "lowbrowwoman" about herself:
"Usenet is my blog... I don't give a damn if anyone ever reads my posts
but they are useful in marshaling [sic] my thoughts."
MID: <iteioi...@mid.individual.net>

[knuttle]

On 12/26/2021 1:31 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

>> With most cars now having electrical windows and door locks that
>> activate about 5 or 10 mph you stand a good chance of electrical failure
>> when the car is under water.
>
> Not according to Mythbusters, at least for a while.

The door lock won't matter if we can't open the door (which by almost all
accounts, can't happen except in the first few seconds which the mythbusters
tested (Adam almost got his leg crushed by the door when he did it though).

And the rolldown windows won't matter if the videos are correct that there
are hundreds of pounds of sidewise pressure pushing the window against the
door jamb once the water level rises enough.

> I watched the video to figure out how this could have happened. No
> information other than total stupidity. You get stuck in an underpass.
> You see the water rising. You open the window or door and climb out
> onto the hood or roof or swim out of the underpass. IT'S A FUCKING
> POND, not a raging river.

That's why it's important to teach our wives, children, and grandchildren
that they don't have any choice but to get out of that car immediately.
a. If they can open the door, do it (but they likely can't)
b. If they can open the window, do it (but they likely can't)
c. They most likely have to break the window to get out

> You DON'T just sit in your car and wait to drown.

I've listened to every car drowning 911 on the Internet where they seem to
feel "safe" inside the car, and they begin to get scared when the water
level on the window is higher than it is inside the car.

They feel that opening the window will "let the water in", which is why they
feel safer inside the car.

In this tunnel death, I suspect they simply felt safer inside the car.

What perhaps they didn't know was that the water fills up faster as the car
sinks lower - or maybe they figured the pavement was closer than it was.

For example, if the pavement was only 3 feet below the water level, they
would have settled to the roadway with enough of an air pocket to survive.

[knuttle]

On 12/26/2021 1:44 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YaMEW30bv4

This exact point in that exact video must have been the couple's nightmare.
https://youtu.be/2YaMEW30bv4?t=74

That car I think didn't have a working electrical system where it would be
interesting to figure out how long it takes for the system to short out.

Even so, when I saw the (much longer) original video, I think it still took
Adam another 10 or so seconds after the car settled to the bottom before the
pressure equalized enough to open the door, which is 10 (or so) very
critical sections to be holding your breath.

I wonder what this couple "thought" when they went into the water?
What scenario do you envision actually happened (since we know it's real)?

[Mark Lloyd]

[snip]

> My high school taught the following, which was typical in the day I think.
> Freshman = Algebra 1 (required for graduation - dumbshits took it later)
> Sophomore = Geometry first half (required for college prep)
> Sophomore = Trig the second half (required for college prep)

I remember my first trig class, which wasn't very useful. The teacher
spent the whole period going around and helping students to find the
right buttons on their calculators. Nothing was said about what trig IS.

[snip]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he
would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the
New, he would be insane." -- Robert G. Ingersoll

[rbowman]

On 12/28/2021 12:22 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> My high school taught the following, which was typical in the day I
>> think.
>> Freshman = Algebra 1 (required for graduation - dumbshits took it later)
>> Sophomore = Geometry first half (required for college prep)
>> Sophomore = Trig the second half (required for college prep)
>
> I remember my first trig class, which wasn't very useful. The teacher
> spent the whole period going around and helping students to find the
> right buttons on their calculators. Nothing was said about what trig IS.
>
> [snip]
>

Calculators?

https://ia800202.us.archive.org/27/items/cu31924004627539/cu31924004627539.pdf

[knuttle]

On 12/28/2021 2:22 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:

> I remember my first trig class, which wasn't very useful. The teacher
> spent the whole period going around and helping students to find the
> right buttons on their calculators. Nothing was said about what trig IS.

Calculators?

I bet they would have cost thousands of dollars in my day. :)
And taken up the entire classroom and electrical supply too.

Eventually by the end of my trig semester we knew every value by heart.
Just as we did with hex when we learned to program in assembly language.

I forgot it all though.
Long ago.

I wonder if it ever comes back?

[Peeler]

On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 18:30:26 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> Calculators?

Did the word trigger your senility again, senile blabbermouth? <BG>

[rbowman]

.7071. That does double duty as a sine and cosine. 0.0000 and 1.0000
are also useful. As for the rest

#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>

#define PI 3.1415926

int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
double degrees;

degrees = atof(argv[1]);
printf("the sine of %f degrees is %f\n", degrees, degrees * PI/180.0);
return 0;
}


~ $gcc sin.c -lm -o sin
~ $./sin 45
the sine of 45.000000 degrees is 0.707107


When all you have is a hammer...

[rbowman]

On 12/28/2021 08:34 PM, knuttle wrote:
> On 12/28/2021 2:22 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>> I remember my first trig class, which wasn't very useful. The teacher
>> spent the whole period going around and helping students to find the
>> right buttons on their calculators. Nothing was said about what trig IS.
>
> Calculators?
>
> I bet they would have cost thousands of dollars in my day. :)
> And taken up the entire classroom and electrical supply too.

K&E slide rule with the magnifying cursor for utmost accuracy. Slide
rules were a sort of reality check so you didn't wander off the path by
several orders of magnitude. Now you punch in numbers and whatever comes
out must be the right answer. In physics tests the sins, in descending
order, were

1. complete failure to grasp the concept
2. grasping the concept but missing the goal by a factor of 100
3. sloppy math but a realistic answer

My high school algebra teacher used to scold me. I'd skip all the
refactoring and juggling terms around the = and write the answer. She
would stand over me and recite '95% of the time you have the right
answer but you skip steps. If the answer is wrong I don't have a clue why.'

Somewhere along the line I'd stumbled over the Trachtenberg method and
gotten adept at it. Casting out the nines gave a high probability that
the product was right. Teachers didn't like that very much either. Of
course now if I want to buy 17 widgets at $1.32 apiece I hunt up a
calculator.

[Peeler]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 12:20:06 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> .7071. That does double duty as a sine and cosine. 0.0000 and 1.0000
> are also useful. As for the rest
>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <math.h>
>
> #define PI 3.1415926
>
> int main(int argc, char** argv)
> {
> double degrees;
>
> degrees = atof(argv[1]);
> printf("the sine of %f degrees is %f\n", degrees, degrees * PI/180.0);
> return 0;
> }
>
> ~ $gcc sin.c -lm -o sin
> ~ $./sin 45
> the sine of 45.000000 degrees is 0.707107
>
> When all you have is a hammer...

ROTFLOL!!! Yeah, VERY "impressive", you notoriously bragging "cool" senile
bigmouth!

--
More typical idiotic senile gossip by lowbrowwoman:
"It's been years since I've been in a fast food burger joint but I used
to like Wendy's because they had a salad bar and baked potatoes."
MID: <ivdi4g...@mid.individual.net>

[Peeler]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 12:45:47 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> K&E slide rule with the magnifying cursor for

Oh, FUCK! The bigmouth is at it again...

<FLUSH the rest of the inevitable high-faluting verbose blather>

--
Yet more absolutely idiotic senile blather by lowbrowwoman:

[The Real Bev]

On 12/29/2021 11:45 AM, rbowman wrote:

> K&E slide rule with the magnifying cursor for utmost accuracy. Slide
> rules were a sort of reality check so you didn't wander off the path by
> several orders of magnitude.

You get three digits. The zeroes are up to you. Choose well.




--
Cheers, Bev
"It's important to never be arrogant. Especially if you're one
of the little people whose opinion doesn't matter." --Rat