Jobst Book

[Tom Kunich]

https://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/bop/d/mountain-view-jobst-brandt-ride-bike/7684706987.html

Now while it might seem funny my posting an ad for a book on Jobst, as a cyclist he actually did help to for the entire sport of cycling especially in California and instead of remembering the bad things he occasionally did it is better to remember him for the good that he mostly did.

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 5:58:20 PM UTC, Tom Kunich wrote:
> https://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/bop/d/mountain-view-jobst-brandt-ride-bike/7684706987.html
>
> Now while it might seem funny my posting an ad for a book on Jobst, as a cyclist he actually did help to for the entire sport of cycling especially in California and instead of remembering the bad things he occasionally did it is better to remember him for the good that he mostly did.
>

I have a copy of The Bicycle Wheel by Jobst Brandt. It is an excellent book, but it is an engineering text, not a handbook for newbies to build a wheel. -- AJ
>

[Catrike Rider]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 06:06:16 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I just built a wheel and I didn't read any books. I just googled "how
to select the right spoke, and everything else came from observing
some wheels and asking a few questions on this forum. In a world
without the internet, all anyone should need to build a wheel is not a
book or an instructor, but a simple short paragraph on selecting
spokes.

In my opinion and experience, formal structured education is vastly
over-rated.

[Tom Kunich]

Obama caused what is now called "the paper ceiling" where fools like Krygowski and Flunky prefer to believe that although over 50% of all technical tasks are done by people without a diploma they can cry that without a formal education in a college you couldn't possibly complete a task. Liebermann is a perfect example of that paper ceiling yielding nothing at all.

[Catrike Rider]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 08:07:14 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr Liebermann has technical experience and knowlege I am very envious
of.

[Tom Kunich]

Indeed he has, but it is NOT in engineering. He spent almost his entire life as an electronics technician. He admits that the state of the art electronics he was taught to get his "degree" was vacuum tubes. I was designing things with vacuum tubes when I was 16! So in fact his degree is useless. Now as a technician he appears to have made a passable living so I will give him that. But his ignorance and abuse claiming that his degree gives him the slightest advantage is pure bullshit.

[John B.]

Well, it all depends on what Tom means by "technical task". A
technical task might well be designing of a high rise building. Or it
might be welding the steel framework for that building. Very different
tasks requiring very different skills. One would expect the building
designer to have a collage education while the welder might not be
able to read or write.

Perhaps it comes from some urge for the less important to show the
world that they are not inferior? People who used to be identified as
"computer programmers" now refer to themselves as "Software engineers"
and even the blokes dumping garbage cans in the big yellow trucks
refer to themselves as "Sanitation Engineers".

Funny though, those that have accomplished something never seem to
use such grandiose terms. I had an uncle by marriage, my mother's
oldest sister's husband, who was the head of the chemistry department
at the state University and if you asked him what he did he'd say
something like, "Oh, I teach a bit at the school". Just as Mr. Muzi's
"claim to fame" seems to be "we've been open every day since 1971 (or
some such ancient "pre Hand phone era).

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 08 Nov 2023 07:21:33 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

If one has actually accomplished something of value, he doesn't have
to brag about it. It shows. It also shows when a person hasn't
accomplished anything of value.

In my opinion, getting an education isn't an accomplishment, it's
acquiring a tool which can then be used to try to accomplish something
of value.

[John B.]

On Wed, 08 Nov 2023 03:17:12 -0500, Catrike Rider

Of course it is a tool. Grab a collage graduate and hand him/her/it a
ball of yarn and a couple of knitting needles and say, "Right! Make me
a sweater!". After all, my old Granny, with her 4 or so years of "book
learning" could, made several every winter (:-)

(him/her/it - socially correct term for the various sexes in the U.S.)
(( No Mr. Muzi the answer is not "Yes" and "No"))
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

I don't think it is even that clearcut. I never practiced psychiatry: the nearest I came was practicing mass market motivational psychology in advertising. And, unless you count teaching as practice, or helping a government department choose their year's intake among the honors students, nor did I ever practice macro-economics, though of course by definition every economist spends his life practicing micro-economics (micro is just what people do in everyday life -- including what economists do). But the ruthlessly logical analysis of every activity which I learned from my teachers is what actually shaped my life and my work. In fact, I doubt that anything I learned at college, which back then might have had therapeutic use, is still considered wise and some of it, like electro-shock treatment for some mental disturbances, would probably be regarded as criminal malpractice (as I regarded it even back then) -- but I learned from Freud (among others) to think clearly and write really well, which gave me an entertaining and rewarding career when I got bored with cities.
>
In any event, the actual content of a three or four year university course anyone can learn in a couple of months -- given, of course, the habit of work, a trained memory, and an analytical mind. For instance, I wasn't trained in engineering but I've done considerable engineering in automobiles, ships, buildings, and thermionic tubes, which brings us full circle to poor Liebermann being ripped off for an already obsolete education. It's easy: identify a suitable text, internalise whatever is directly useful from it while ingesting no more than a mnemonic framework of the rest so that you can find whatever may become relevant. Example in a review of the premier text on thermionic tubes which I wrote for Glass Audio: https://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/JUTE%20ON%20AMPS%20RDH.html.
>
Andre Jute
Endlessly curious.
>

[Tom Kunich]

Jobst is dead and this is a book about his effect on the sport or bicycling in America. He did have a very positive effect and people that don't know anything about Jobst other than his iron fist on these groups should know about him.
j

[Tom Kunich]

The fact is that Liebermann had to be a very poor student to believe that he had an education when they were teaching him vacuum tubes 10 years after I was buying old radios to strip the tubes and power supplies out of to experiment with. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason that he couldn't have bought or borrowed books about transistors, integrated circuits and highly integrated digital logic as I did.

His bullshit pretense of having an education somehow superior to mine demonstrates his continued egotistical idiocy. I made much more than a very good living and have no fear of the future, He is on welfare and telling people he is an electronics engineer.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 06:17:57 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In any event, the actual content of a three or four year university course anyone can learn in a couple of months -- given, of course, the habit of work, a trained memory, and an analytical mind. For instance, I wasn't trained in engineering but I've done considerable engineering in automobiles, ships, buildings, and thermionic tubes, which brings us full circle to poor Liebermann being ripped off for an already obsolete education. It's easy: identify a suitable text, internalise whatever is directly useful from it while ingesting no more than a mnemonic framework of the rest so that you can find whatever may become relevant. Example in a review of the premier text on thermionic tubes which I wrote for Glass Audio: https://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/JUTE%20ON%20AMPS%20RDH.html.

You mean this book?
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/LUJkSouTvMeKMF9c7>
I have the 4th edition (1952). I once had a first edition (1934) but
sold it for a tidy sum.

I didn't use it much while I was in college. Looking back through the
1498 page, I would probably have some difficulties USING the book for
design. That's because I'm used to computer models (SPICE) and
probing the signal path with an oscilloscope. I would guess(tm) that
if there had been further editions it would have included nomograms,
Smith Charts, SPICE simulations and more modern test equipment
suitable for study when I was in college (1965 to 1971). In other
words, if you wanted to design or analyze something with 1953 vintage
components and methods, the Radiotron Designers Handbook 4th edition
is quite useful.

You can download a copy from:
<http://www.tubebooks.org/books/rdh4.pdf> (24.5MB).
The PDF is not searchable.
Or, just buy a used hard copy:
<https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=radiotron+designers+handbook>

Anyway, thank you for all the derogatory comments. The
self-aggrandizement also made humorous reading. I would gladly debate
the value of my college education and such, but not for a few days. My
welding project went awry when I discovered that I couldn't flux weld
inside the stove because my head, mask, hands and welding head would
not fit through the door of the stove. I also misread the setup
instructions resulting in my initial welds being cosmetically
disgusting. The 10" diamond masonry blade arrived today from Georgia
(2 days late due to a railroad accident), so I should be able to cut
the firebrick to size and burn wood tomorrow evening. At the same
time, I just finished rebuilding the 1960's bathroom electric heater.
It runs but I need to make some measurements to make sure it doesn't
trip a circuit breaker (again). These projects take precedence over
character assassination and defending my reputation in RBT. I'm also
about 400 message behind in reading RBT. Please carry on. I should
be back eventually. More photos later:
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/EUknsZj8HBxa165w6>

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[John B.]

On Wed, 08 Nov 2023 19:12:00 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

Re welding. You know, I hope, that single side welding is a common
practice. You simply "vee out" the material to the point that the root
pass will achieve 100% penetration and then fill the remainder of the
vee with subsequent passes.

Way back when we welded pipelines by hand there was even a practice
where we ran the root pass with one type of (expensive) rod and
subsequent filler passes with a cheaper rod.

If the outer portion of the "V" is too wide to fill with a single
straight pass you can run a series of straight passes, side by side,
or a weave pass where you weld back and forth across the vee
progressing down the length of the vee a bit with each pass.

All arc welding, of course, but no reason that you can't do the same
thing with your "wire welder".

I've used the term "penetration" which in the welding world is simply
that the weld melts both the rod and the parent (what you are welding)
material so that they flow together and become one. Not just sticking
the weld material on the top of the parent material (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/8/2023 9:17 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > In any event, the actual content of a three or four year university
course anyone can learn in a couple of months -- given, of course, the
habit of work, a trained memory, and an analytical mind.

Absolute bullshit. To pick just one portion of an ME degree, in a couple
months you wouldn't be able to master the fundamentals of fluid
mechanics. Properties of fluids, fluid friction, loss coefficients,
power requirements, flow rates, open channel flow, etc. And those topics
are less than one textbook worth of information.

> For instance, I wasn't trained in engineering but I've done
considerable engineering in automobiles, ships, buildings, and

thermionic tubes...

Bullshit. You dabbled in a few projects or puttered in a workshop.
That's far different from "considerable engineering."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 4:40:49 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 11/8/2023 9:17 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > In any event, the actual content of a three or four year university
> course anyone can learn in a couple of months -- given, of course, the
> habit of work, a trained memory, and an analytical mind.>
>
> Absolute bullshit. To pick just one portion of an ME degree, in a couple
> months you wouldn't be able to master the fundamentals of fluid
> mechanics. Properties of fluids, fluid friction, loss coefficients,
> power requirements, flow rates, open channel flow, etc. And those topics
> are less than one textbook worth of information.
>

Speak for yourself, Franki-boy. You may, unsurprisingly, not be able to do what I do because you're a dullard and have slack work habits, but -- fortunately! -- the rest of us aren't you.

>
> > For instance, I wasn't trained in engineering but I've done
> considerable engineering in automobiles, ships, buildings, and
> thermionic tubes...
>
> Bullshit. You dabbled in a few projects or puttered in a workshop.
> That's far different from "considerable engineering."
>

And you know that how, Franki-boy? Perhaps like you claimed to know for certain that I couldn't possibly get up to 100kph/60mph on any of the hills in my locality, before you even knew what my locality was then, and made a fool of yourself for starting a fight with me over it? Man, you're a fuckwit of infinite amazement. How do you, for instance, think I was invited to write a book about designing and building and developing prototype cars?
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
>
What a blithering, blathering moron! You should keep your mouth shut, Franki-boy, so that your ignorance doesn't run out.
>
Andre Jute
BTW, Franki-boy, since you're such an authority on everything, where are you definitive texts on any subject whatsoever?
>

[Tom Kunich]

Krygowski has a need to believe that NO ONE could learn anything without the help of him. Just like no one should ride a bike that isn't heavyweight steel with a freewheel and friction shifting. Even Bob Roll who was racing before Krygowski knew what a bicycle was said that Shimano click shifting MADE racing He uses bar ends but they are click shifting and not friction. And horror of horrors, he uses a freehub and cassettes.

I learned complete electronics engineering from little more than books (and an Air Force 3 month course in electronics fundamentals). And I did the mechanical engineering of the table motions on several machines and the heating and cooling on others. What the hell is so hard about having to look things up? I had to recalculate the mechanical response of the poison gas detectors when the dumbass PhD's got it incorrect.

Krygowski is so convinced that the world couldn't turn without him that he is pitiful.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/10/2023 5:29 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 2:10:32 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 4:40:49 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>> You dabbled in a few projects or puttered in a workshop.
>>> That's far different from "considerable engineering."
>>>
>> And you know that how, Franki-boy? Perhaps like you claimed to know
for certain that I couldn't possibly get up to 100kph/60mph on any of

the hills in my locality, before you even knew what my locality was ...

For those unfamiliar with Andre Jute: He first entered this discussion
group during a discussion of bike aerodynamics. He described his bicycle
and his upright posture (sometimes referred to as "sit up and beg") and
claimed it was so aerodynamic he had coasted down a short local hill at
60 mph.

I called bullshit, and still do. After much back and forth with me and
other skeptics, Jute injected further details into the story of his
purported speed record. He said he'd hired a local farmer, had him bolt
a huge piece of plywood across the tail of a truck to form a windbreak,
then had the farmer drive fast down the hill, using a rope to tow Jute
and his bike up to speed.

That's an odd way to demonstrate aerodynamics of a bike. And I'll let
the readers judge whether it's likely that story is true.

> Krygowski has a need to believe that NO ONE could learn anything
without the help of him.

Nope. I've known hundreds of students who were well educated by other
professors. Yes, there are some true autodidacts, but above a certain
level of complexity of subject material, they are very rare.

I don't believe anyone posting here could have mastered engineering by
_just_ reading books. I say that as a person who has corrected probably
hundreds of thousands of student mistakes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 1:13:43 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 11/10/2023 5:29 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 2:10:32 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 4:40:49 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You dabbled in a few projects or puttered in a workshop.
> >>> That's far different from "considerable engineering."
> >>>
> >> And you know that how, Franki-boy? Perhaps like you claimed to know
> for certain that I couldn't possibly get up to 100kph/60mph on any of
> the hills in my locality, before you even knew what my locality was ...
>

And here Franki-boy cut the rest of my sentence: '... then, and made a fool of yourself for starting a fight with me over it?" That's a fact that other members of the group mentioned to me later was the trigger-point at which realised Krygowski lost the argument because of his irrationality; no wonder he tries to hide it.

>
> For those unfamiliar with Andre Jute: He first entered this discussion
> group during a discussion of bike aerodynamics. He described his bicycle
> and his upright posture (sometimes referred to as "sit up and beg") and
> claimed it was so aerodynamic he had coasted down a short local hill at
> 60 mph.
>

That's an outright lie. I described using an adjustable stem to put my hands almost down at mudguard level to give me a flat back and suitable aerodynamics. I do know a great deal more than you do about aerodynamics, Franki-boy.

>
> I called bullshit, and still do.
>

Of course you do. You made a fool of yourself over it, claiming that I said I rode a bike at 100mph, and didn't have the humility to admit your error when I pointed out that Europeans use kph, kilometres per hour and that my personal ton-up record was only 62mph.

>
> After much back and forth with me and
> other skeptics,
>

"Back and forth", eh? Is that what you call it. I was hounded by your claque, of whom I've long since disposed, just allowing you to stay as an example of what happens to scum who try interfere in my birthright of free speech.

>Jute injected further details into the story of his
> purported speed record.
>

"Purported"? Really? You've had thirteen or fourteen years to prove I told a lie, Franki-boy, and you haven't proven shit. Now shit or get off the pot.

>
> He said he'd hired a local farmer, had him bolt
> a huge piece of plywood across the tail of a truck to form a windbreak,
>

That's another outright lie and a dumb one at that. Only a moron like you, Franki-boy, would think I'd trust an amateur with my limbs and my life. I hired a farmer to block both ends of a country lane. The guy in the truck was a professional driver. Nor was I towed down the hill, as you claim. I was towed up the hill behind the truck and before the peak the truck pulled off and I shot over the brow.

>
> then had the farmer drive fast down the hill, using a rope to tow Jute
> and his bike up to speed.
>

This is the same lie again. You're going senile, Franki-boy, one of the symptoms being progressive memory failure.

>
> That's an odd way to demonstrate aerodynamics of a bike.
>

That's another lie from Franki-boy's dull imagination. Like Mr Kunich says, Krygowski is so stupid and unobservant that even at this late stage of his life he thinks everyone perforce must have the same interests he has. I have zero interest in bicycle aerodynamics; they're a dead end for compulsive-obsessive personalities without lives. (If you don't know that I spent the early part of my life racing everything that would take an internal combustion engine, my interest in aerodynamics start at 115mph, the minimum point where they start to impact modern racing cars more than fractionally, not at my personal ton-up best speed in kilomers on a bike.)

>
>And I'll let
> the readers judge whether it's likely that story is true.
>

Oh dear! You think I care shit what anyone in your much reduced claque thinks? After I spent years demonstrating my public contempt for you and anyone who agrees with you? For the sake of shortstopping pointless correspondence, it is my opinion that any cyclist who doubts that another cyclist can go 62mph and change -- is a moron just like Franki-boy. a wishful thinker and a wanker, again just like Franki-boy.

>
> > Krygowski has a need to believe that NO ONE could learn anything
> without the help of him.
>

I just spent a frustrating five minutes trying to think of anything Franki-boy could help me learn, and that includes the entire field of engineering. Zero result. Besides being an stubbornly ignorant fool, Krygowski is so immoral that he'd probably tell me something wrong on purpose in the hope that I would injure myself.

>
> Nope. I've known hundreds of students who were well educated by other
> professors.
>

"Other professors". You lie by implication, Franki-boy: you weren't a "professor", you were a jumped-up welding instructor.

>
>Yes, there are some true autodidacts,
>

I didn't say anything about being an autodidact. I had wonderful teachers who inculcated critical thinking. Furthermore, unlike little people like you, I feel no pain admitting ignorance in any subject, or even holes in subjects on which I'm considered a leading authority. Consequently, I seek out the advice of experts all the time, and work happily beside them. But you wouldn't know this because you think ignorance is a shameful failure -- while I see it as process of improving my product and making a new friend. Anyhow, you don't know shit that I want to know about, and if I did want to know, I'd ask someone who was at college with me and did rise to be a professor and write highly regarded texts, not some stray jerk on a Google group.

> but above a certain
> level of complexity of subject material, they are very rare.
>

That's funny. When I wanted to study savants, I put together a panel of nine subjects in a couple of hours at the psych facility I set up in Boston for my advertising agency, and delivered my induction talk to them the afternoon of the same day.

>
> I don't believe anyone posting here could have mastered engineering by
> _just_ reading books.
>

But Tom didn't say that, you dolt, he said he built circuits as a boy, he was taught the basics by the Air Force, and there were no doubt senior men to observe and learn from. Nor did I say anything at all about "just reading books". You made that up from the whole cloth, Franki-boy. It's another lie you're telling all and sundry.

>
> I say that as a person who has corrected probably
> hundreds of thousands of student mistakes.
>

Even students with such low entry scores that they end up at some provincial clown show of a college in the charge of an undistinguished lifelong third-rater like you -- a clown who brags about correcting students! -- don't deserve to have their confidence undermined by a fool like you, Franki-boy.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
>
A Polish peasant dumber than a frostbitten potato.
>
Andre Jute
Genius is a form of successful dilettantism.
>

[Tom Kunich]

After Krygowski's comments about how you cannot learn mechanical engineering out of a book, it is plain that those who can, do, and those who can't teach. Dopy the Pole, would have us believe that he knows what he's doing but in fact, he makes Liebermann look brilliant.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/11/2023 6:40 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> After Krygowski's comments about how you cannot learn mechanical engineering out of a book, it is plain that those who can, do, and those who can't teach.

And isn't it odd that students who actually attend accredited
engineering schools tend to be among the very highest qualified,
according to things like college entrance exams.

And they tend to go through the trouble of actually attending classes,
working in labs, doing homework, analyzing data and writing reports.
They also ask questions in class, get help from their professors, and
still make mistakes on homework, projects and exams.

But the good ones persevere. They get their degrees and go on to do
engineering professionally. That's not just programming simple motions
within a desktop machine; actual engineering.

Those who want extra credentials and qualify for it often take the
Professional Engineering exam, in order to get their PE license. The
exam consists of eight hours of intense thinking and computation. And
roughly a third of those who qualify to take the PE exam don't pass it
on their first attempt. Most return to try again.

Why do so many people go to all that trouble? Why don't they just "read
out" a library like Tom claims he has, then land good engineering jobs?
What do they know that Tom does not?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Roger Merriman]

To be fair I’d assume some of it would be to get the qualifications which
verify the skills knowledge.

But yes books will only take one so far, there is something about doing it
and learning how it works in practice and equally important when things are
not perfect, or how they are supposed to be which is true of life in
general rather than engineering only.

I’d say for example changing disk pads if you read instructions it often
sounds fairly complicated multiple stage processes, rather than the simple
5 min operation it is.

I occasionally get used by medical bods or others normally law types, as
while they can learn about brain injuries and types meeting someone even
for a short period, gives a glimpse into folks life experiences.

I don’t always say yes, but in general there is coffee and biscuits if not
cake!

Roger Merriman

[Andre Jute]

Poor Franki-boy has a down on books because he hasn't written any. The reason he was never promoted, never made professor, did undergraduate dog work all his life, was never in a position to choose his own students, the people who will be the leaders of the profession, besides his general obnoxiousness, is that Franki-boy had no worthwhile publications, in a profession where publication equals prestige and promotion. -- AJ
>

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 22:07:28 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Why do so many people go to all that trouble? Why don't they just "read
>out" a library like Tom claims he has, then land good engineering jobs?
>What do they know that Tom does not?

When I attended college (1965 to 1971), all the colleges provided
lectures and book learning. Not many provided labs and practical
experience. I attended one of each. I entered UCLA and discovered I
would not have any classes in electronics until the 4th (last) year. I
quickly switched to Cal Poly Pomona, which replaced the general
education lecture classes, with labs and practical projects. Although
not accredited, Cal Poly Pomona graduates were in high demand[1].

Note that my web page and domain are "Learn By Destroying". That
means one does not really understand how something works unless they
have first destroyed it and then learned what it takes to fix it.

My earlier rant on the topic:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/zu2_9VgqNNA/m/Kojl6YJPAAAJ>

[1] The late 1960's, the US was actively involved in the Vietnam war.
Prospective employers were not hiring recent college graduates who
might be in danger of being drafted into the military. Cal Poly
Pomona was somewhat of an exception, as many prospective employers
were willing to "do what was necessary" in order to obtain a
deferrment for the newly hired engineer.

06/07/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/QNPNSofg064/m/Xaamy15iBQAJ>
"I would warrant that I've read more than 20 times more books than you
have. I read out three public libraries, the military library and all
of the books I used to gain the knowledge to become an engineer."

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 15:40:48 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>After Krygowski's comments about how you cannot learn mechanical engineering out of a book, it is plain that those who can, do, and those who can't teach. Dopy the Pole, would have us believe that he knows what he's doing but in fact, he makes Liebermann look brilliant.

As I've mentioned 1/2 dozen times previously, claiming that someone is
somehow technically inadequate does nothing to demonstrate your
knowledge or abilities. Comparing yourself to someone else does
nothing to demonstrate your competence. Frank and I could be the
worlds best or the worlds worst engineers and you will remain a high
school dropout and a very bad liar.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/12/2023 1:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 22:07:28 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Why do so many people go to all that trouble? Why don't they just "read
>> out" a library like Tom claims he has, then land good engineering jobs?
>> What do they know that Tom does not?
>
> When I attended college (1965 to 1971), all the colleges provided
> lectures and book learning. Not many provided labs and practical
> experience. I attended one of each. I entered UCLA and discovered I
> would not have any classes in electronics until the 4th (last) year. I
> quickly switched to Cal Poly Pomona, which replaced the general
> education lecture classes, with labs and practical projects. Although
> not accredited, Cal Poly Pomona graduates were in high demand[1].

It's difficult for me to understand how a school could possibly cram all
technical courses into one year. Our program's prerequisite structure
was diagrammed by a pretty complex flowchart. Students were expected to
keep their own copy of the flowchart and check off courses as they
completed them. Another copy was kept in their advising folder in our
offices. Taking a course without necessary prerequisites typically
triggered bad news for the student, even if he passed.

Going by memory, a student needed to take our walk-in-the-door
"Introduction" class before taking Mechanics I. Mechanics I was a
prerequisite to Mechanics II. That (and some calculus course, IIRC) was
a prerequisite to Fluid Mechanics; which was a prerequisite to Fluid
Power; which was a prerequisite to Machine Systems; which was a
prerequisite to Robotics Tech.

And that's just one chain through the flowchart. Design of Machine
Elements I & II were also prerequisites to Machine Systems, as were two
Electricity/electronics courses and Kinematics and Mechanisms. Heat
Transfer and Thermodynamics courses were not in the chain leading to
Robotics, but they were required and had their own sets of
prerequisites. And that's not the entire curriculum.

That complex structure could never have been arranged to fit in one year.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 19:31:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski

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

>On 11/12/2023 1:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 22:07:28 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Why do so many people go to all that trouble? Why don't they just "read
> >> out" a library like Tom claims he has, then land good engineering jobs?
> >> What do they know that Tom does not?
> >
> > When I attended college (1965 to 1971), all the colleges provided
> > lectures and book learning. Not many provided labs and practical
> > experience. I attended one of each. I entered UCLA and discovered I
> > would not have any classes in electronics until the 4th (last) year. I
> > quickly switched to Cal Poly Pomona, which replaced the general
> > education lecture classes, with labs and practical projects. Although
> > not accredited, Cal Poly Pomona graduates were in high demand[1].
>
>It's difficult for me to understand how a school could possibly cram all
>technical courses into one year.

UCLA did NOT cram all the technical courses in one year. As you
mentioned, there were the usual hard science classes, such as physics,
chemistry, astronomy, geology, material science, math, thermodynamics,
computers, etc. What was lacking was anything directly related to
electronics. The closest approximation was physics, where we learned
the Ebers-Moll bipolar junction xsistor model using electrons and
holes (the lack of electrons).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_junction_transistor#Ebers%E2%80%93Moll_model>
There was no associated lab and was all theory.

It's not too difficult to understand why this happened. At the time,
UCLA was mostly interested in producing the next generation of
theoretical physicists which meant that students were expected to
continue their education beyond the bachelors degree and into graduate
studies (masters and PHD degrees). When I asked too many questions
about the curriculum, my faculty advisor suggested that a trade school
might me more appropriate. Since attending a trade school was NOT
sufficient for a student deferment, this was not a suitable
alternative. At the time (late 1960's), I don't recall if Cal Poly
had a graduate studies program. I don't think so, but I'm not sure.
They eventually obtained accreditation and established various
graduate studies programs:
<https://www.cpp.edu/ceis/edleadership/doctoral-program/about-the-program.shtml>

>Our program's prerequisite structure
>was diagrammed by a pretty complex flowchart. Students were expected to
>keep their own copy of the flowchart and check off courses as they
>completed them. Another copy was kept in their advising folder in our
>offices. Taking a course without necessary prerequisites typically
>triggered bad news for the student, even if he passed.

At the time (late 1960's), the objective was to stay in college to
maintain the academic deferment for as long as possible. It was
possible to graduate early by arranging a waver or challenging a class
based on experience, but no sane student did that.

The difficult parts were obtaining a seat in a required class and
dealing with the semester to quarter system conversions. Classes also
tended to be oversubscribed. There were various schemes for staying
in school, but as you mention, any variation from the straight and
narrow path could precipitate being drafted into the army.

>Going by memory, a student needed to take our walk-in-the-door
>"Introduction" class before taking Mechanics I. Mechanics I was a
>prerequisite to Mechanics II. That (and some calculus course, IIRC) was
>a prerequisite to Fluid Mechanics; which was a prerequisite to Fluid
>Power; which was a prerequisite to Machine Systems; which was a
>prerequisite to Robotics Tech.

If you roll back the clock to what was fashionable during the 1960's,
the curriculum was quite different. Also, I was following the
electrical and electronic curriculum, not mechanical curriculum.

>And that's just one chain through the flowchart. Design of Machine
>Elements I & II were also prerequisites to Machine Systems, as were two
>Electricity/electronics courses and Kinematics and Mechanisms. Heat
>Transfer and Thermodynamics courses were not in the chain leading to
>Robotics, but they were required and had their own sets of
>prerequisites. And that's not the entire curriculum.
>
>That complex structure could never have been arranged to fit in one year.

As I mentioned, it wasn't. Incidentally, we didn't have a flow chart.
We had a checklist that tended to change every semester. It wasn't a
moving target, but it was close. Upon applying for graduation, I
discovered that I had "forgotten" to take English literature. After
some negotiations, I discovered that it was mandatory. So, in my
senior (last) year in college, I was sentenced to 15 weeks of culture
shock.

[Catrike Rider]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 19:31:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski

If you teach it slow enough, and add some mandatory race and gender
studies classes, you could stretch it out to a decade and collect even
more $$$$.

[Andre Jute]

Your pal Franki-boy is the kewpie-doll, front-of-house spokesperson for C. Northcote Parkinson's only too-true observation truism that for incompetents work expands to fill the time available. -- AJ
>

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/12/2023 8:52 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> The difficult parts were obtaining a seat in a required class and
> dealing with the semester to quarter system conversions.

That bit was interesting to me, because one of the more difficult parts
of my teaching career was guiding the program and students through a
quarter to semester conversion. It was an immense amount of work with no
discernible benefit and many obvious detriments.

Quarters? Semesters? Seems like yet another example of "What's in fashion?"

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Frank is the definition of a nobody. The fact that he is so egotistical despite never having accomplished one thing in his entire life says a lot about him. I have a step-son-in-law that teaches math and the difference between him and Frank is night and day.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Extending the time in college was only a problem during the Vietnam
war era, when conscription was in full force, Dec 1969 -> Jan 1973.
When the draft ended, so did the incentive to maintain one's student
deferment. I attended college from Sept 1965 -> June 1971 or a total
of 5 years and 9 months. Normally, that would have been 4 years in
college for a BS (bachelors of science) degree. Add another 9 months
for me studying for teachers preparation.

At the time, we didn't have "mandatory race and gender studies".
However, we did have an assortment of liberal arts and social sciences
classes, such as political science, English literature, philosophy,
economics, etc. The list of such classes has been greatly expanded in
the past 60 years. With the exception of English literature, I rather
enjoyed taking these classes, mostly because that's where I the women
were found. While at Cal Poly, I dated all the women engineering
students. All five of them.

One very useful class was engineering economics. I took this class
while at San Fernando Valley State college. The class taught me how
to assign financial consideration to engineering calculations. I
still occasionally refer to the text book.

Another useful class was tractor driving and later tractor mechanics.
In order to maintain my deferment, I need to take 15 quarter units per
quarter. It was often difficult to obtain a seat in the more popular
classes. One year, I found myself short a few units with nothing
available in engineering. Since Cal Poly Pomona was originally an
agricultural college, they still taught agricultural topics. So, I
filled in the missing units with an elective class in tractor driving
and later in tractor mechanics. I fit in nicely with the agricultural
business management students wearing suits and carrying brief cases
and the engineering students wearing jeans and cowboy boots.

Race and gender studies would probably not have worked because of the
large percentage of foreign students in engineering, mostly from Iraq.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 07:10:26 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Frank is the definition of a nobody.

Have you ever considered the possibility that Frank has no interest in
becoming a famous person or media sensation? There's a name for
people who seek attention, but I'll pretend I forgot what it's called.
Those who seek importance is a sure sign of their lack of importance.
Delusions of Grandeur
<https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/delusions-grandeur>
"It’s when you believe that you have more power, wealth, smarts, or
other grand traits than is true."

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 08:48:35 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

One of the several reasons I dropped out of college was the mandatory
classes that had nothing to do with what I wanted to study. I don't
like paying for things I have no use for.

I bounced in and out of college for a couple of years, earning money
for a few months then wasting it on mandatory college courses I didn't
want.

Out of money the last time, I went looking for a part time job and by
chance, I found something I thought I could build into a career. After
that I scoffed at the degree and only took the college and tech
courses I wanted.

[Tom Kunich]

There you have it. Liebermann was never an engineer because he never wanted to be an engineer - he was just avoiding the draft like all of the little cowards.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:33:26 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>There you have it. Liebermann was never an engineer because he never wanted to be an engineer - he was just avoiding the draft like all of the little cowards.

Tom: Why do you find it necessary to lie about your wealth, education
and employment experience while I do not need to lie? That seems
rather odd. Could it be that your past is somewhat questionable? I
can provide numerous examples from your RBT postings where you are
obviously lying.

Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote this in RBT? Your comment
is very prophetic.
09/05/2023
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/yaIqS-ZrEkQ/m/pbRqLebeAgAJ>
"When you have nothing else to show for yourself you can only make the
achievements of others look less than yours."

[John B.]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:58:02 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:33:26 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
><cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>There you have it. Liebermann was never an engineer because he never wanted to be an engineer - he was just avoiding the draft like all of the little cowards.
>
>Tom: Why do you find it necessary to lie about your wealth, education
>and employment experience while I do not need to lie? That seems
>rather odd. Could it be that your past is somewhat questionable? I
>can provide numerous examples from your RBT postings where you are
>obviously lying.
>
>Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote this in RBT? Your comment
>is very prophetic.
>09/05/2023
><https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/yaIqS-ZrEkQ/m/pbRqLebeAgAJ>
>"When you have nothing else to show for yourself you can only make the
>achievements of others look less than yours."

Not from a book but from the Internet:
https://rec.bicycles.tech.narkive.com/oKoXRwKO/tom-kunich-is-a-ass

Oh, you mean this guy:
Thomas H Kunich, Born: Oct 1944
3539 Monterey Blvd
San Leandro CA94578
510) 351-3807

I thought we had gotten over him, now that we have other contributors
who are equally rude and obnoxious, always carping while offering no
useful information.

Jobst Brandt

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/13/2023 11:48 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 08:10:30 -0500, Catrike Rider
> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 19:31:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> That complex structure could never have been arranged to fit in one
year.
>>
>> If you teach it slow enough, and add some mandatory race and gender
>> studies classes, you could stretch it out to a decade and collect even
>> more $$$$.
>
> Extending the time in college was only a problem during the Vietnam
> war era, when conscription was in full force, Dec 1969 -> Jan 1973.
> When the draft ended, so did the incentive to maintain one's student
> deferment. I attended college from Sept 1965 -> June 1971 or a total
> of 5 years and 9 months. Normally, that would have been 4 years in
> college for a BS (bachelors of science) degree. Add another 9 months
> for me studying for teachers preparation.
>
> At the time, we didn't have "mandatory race and gender studies".
> However, we did have an assortment of liberal arts and social sciences
> classes, such as political science, English literature, philosophy,
> economics, etc.

There are still requirements for a certain number of non-technical
courses, although the characterization of those as "race and gender
studies" is right wing knee jerk silliness.

Those who know little about college educations may be shocked to learn
that the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology _requires_
that engineering curricula meet a quota for non-engineering courses. A
curriculum cannot be accredited without those courses.

Besides science and math, they demand education in communication skills,
economics and perhaps a couple other specific areas. But there are also
minimum requirements for elective courses, and there's plenty of
latitude on what some of those elective courses may contain. Philosophy,
History, Psychology, Critical Thinking, Arts Appreciation and more are
all valid choices, and students do get to choose according to their
interests.

As shocking as it may seem to some, ABET wants degreed engineers to have
some culture and some knowledge of the world beyond their calculators.

Hmm. I wonder if a course in Critical Thinking might convince some
people who have never (or barely) attended college to stop commenting on
what goes on in college.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:18:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski

They also want to extract as much $$$ from the student as possible.

[Tom Kunich]

Well, now that really takes the cake - the man who took a hundred years in engineering school to earn a BA EE and was such an obnoxious ass that he couldn't get a job after his first one out of school when no one knew him, thinks that HE is cultured! Imagine, all of that time in school and having to work as a technician for himself rather than for a company that would have paid him ten times as much, thinks of himself as cultured!

They have all of those miscellaneous classes in college because 80% of college graduates never work ONE DAY in their majors. So they have to have something to fall back on. You know, between jobs I did sort of work as a technician. Me and another guy formed a company installing telephone systems in skyscrapers and made a LOT of money. But I preferred engineering so much that I took a job designing and programming medical instruments making less money. And during the Vietnam Airlift I felt it my civic duty to work recovery on commercial aircraft and get our boys out of that hell hole we should NEVER have been involved in.

Here is where that mindless Liebermann tells us that Eisenhower got us into Vietnam because he loves the lies. Eisenhower provided ONLY military advisers. Kennedy put American soldiers on the ground.

[John B.]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 07:53:45 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Here is where that mindless Liebermann tells us that Eisenhower got rus into Vietnam because he loves the lies. Eisenhower provided ONLY military advisers. Kennedy put American soldiers on the ground.


But Timmy, The U.S. has been at war with someone for more then 90% of
the countries history. Nearly always in wars that the U.S. started.

They even went to war in Honduras, to protect the Standard Fruit
Company's banana business, in 1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924 and
1925.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

Krygowski may have had some "culture" compulsorily stuffed down his gullet but that doesn't mean he digested it rather than merely ingesting it. The evidence is that Franki-boy is a non-kulturny Polish peasant with as much relation to culture as to the King of England, a manifest impossibility. I do in fact know many cultured engineers (being cultured is axiomatic among my friends) but those who spent even a few minutes on this forum were pretty dismissive of Krygo. -- AJ

[Tom Kunich]

This is why I wrote Krygowski off after returning from my concussion and reading his preposterous comments. Like him claiming to have disagreed with Jobst Brandt in public! I call them the Stupid 4 for a reason. They all know nothing and actually believe that they can invent history merely by wishing it so.

[Andre Jute]

Frank-boy disagreeing with Jobst in public? If that were true, even an insensitive clown like Krygowski would long since be gone. Jobst was a talented and clever man, but he didn't suffer fools gladly, and besides his many engineering talents, he had a cutting lip. I can see it, Franki-boy hurls himself at the great man's ankles, and Jobst accidentally steps on him and squashes him like a bug.
>
All the same, Jobst, whom everyone knows I admired long, long -- decades -- before I met him here on RBT (motor racers of my generation knew about the exemplary brakes Jobst designed for Porsche), was only human in that he hated having unavoidable errors in publication pointed out to him, and I had the most extraordinary difficulty in getting him to admit that an error in the math in The Bicycle Wheel needed correcting at the next printing.
>
Even after Jobst grudgingly admitted that he has already discovered the error and decided to correct it at the next edition, some of the clowns here on RBT, who had been burned by Jobst or were simply too lacking in self-confidence to cross a fellow who took no prisoners, wanted me to carry on from there. One guy, I called him Jumbo, -- he was the fellow who claimed to be a materials expert and was always urging aluminium bikes on people -- argued that I was the only one who ever made any headway against Jobst, and therefore *owed it to the rest of the group* to carry on. But I'd made the single small point I wanted to make, and wouldn't have made except I mistook Jobst for another writer, who in the normal course of events are grateful to have correctable errors in long-running books pointed out politely.
>
A little hanger-on like Franki-boy did the smart thing to wait until Jobst was dead before he claimed to have contradicted him in public! Heh-heh! Hey, we carry on like this, and in another fifteen, twenty years, who knows, we could discover something else smart that Krygowski did,, or at least something else that isn't stupid.
>
Andre Jute
Editorial services are not free.
>

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:10:58 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>One guy, I called him Jumbo, (...) -- argued that I was the only

>one who ever made any headway against Jobst, and therefore
>*owed it to the rest of the group* to carry on.

In about 2010, I locked horns with Jobst over the proper procedure for
applying vulcanizing fluid to tire patches. Jobst claimed that the
proper way was to apply the fluid over the patch after the plastic
protective film had been removed. The fluid was then expected to
diffuse through the rubber path and mix with the glue. I contended
that won't work because the molecular diameter of the volatized
vulcanizing fluid was many times larger than that of oxygen and
nitrogen molecules. If the patch was expected to prevent the passage
of air through the patch, it would also be expected to prevent the
passage of the hydrocarbon compounds (75% heptane and 25% acetone) in
vulcanizing fluid. Jobst and I engaged in a running debate on the
topic in RBT for about 2 weeks and ending in a deadlock.

My impression was that Jobst was very good in mechanical engineering
but seriously lacking in chemistry and possibly in other areas outside
his areas of expertise. I don't know if arguing to a stalemate is
considered making "headway".

Some things were different in 2010 compared to later discussions.
Nobody was lying, insulting, contriving amazing facts or belittling
people with childish names. If you expect to make any "headway" in
todays discussions, you won't get any respect from those you inspired
to do the same with your abuse of their names.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/23/2023 9:01 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> In about 2010, I locked horns with Jobst over the proper procedure for
> applying vulcanizing fluid to tire patches. Jobst claimed that the
> proper way was to apply the fluid over the patch after the plastic
> protective film had been removed. The fluid was then expected to
> diffuse through the rubber path and mix with the glue. I contended
> that won't work because the molecular diameter of the volatized
> vulcanizing fluid was many times larger than that of oxygen and
> nitrogen molecules. If the patch was expected to prevent the passage
> of air through the patch, it would also be expected to prevent the
> passage of the hydrocarbon compounds (75% heptane and 25% acetone) in
> vulcanizing fluid. Jobst and I engaged in a running debate on the
> topic in RBT for about 2 weeks and ending in a deadlock.
>
> My impression was that Jobst was very good in mechanical engineering
> but seriously lacking in chemistry and possibly in other areas outside
> his areas of expertise. I don't know if arguing to a stalemate is
> considered making "headway".

As I recall, Jobst was only rarely wrong, and he even more rarely
admitted to being wrong.

I recall three minor disputes he and I had. One was his claim that it's
impossible to initiate a bicycle turn without countersteering. I said I
thought it was, by simply waiting for a random wobble in the proper
direction and sort of accepting it. Another was during an extended
discussion of tires blowing off rims during extended braking. I said I
thought there were significant changes in the properties of the tire
materials, including adhesives. IIRC, he did eventually agree. A third
was his insistence that it was a bad idea to ride near lane center.

We can discuss all those now, if people like.

> Some things were different in 2010 compared to later discussions.
> Nobody was lying, insulting, contriving amazing facts or belittling
> people with childish names.

Well, there was certainly far less of that behavior in those days.
Things have gone downhill.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

Oh, good grief, no. Please don't get Krygowski started on another of
his immature nonsense rants...

>> Some things were different in 2010 compared to later discussions.
>> Nobody was lying, insulting, contriving amazing facts or belittling
>> people with childish names.
>
>Well, there was certainly far less of that behavior in those days.
>Things have gone downhill.

Thanks to Krygowki.

[Andre Jute]

Exactly so. -- AJ
>

[Tom Kunich]

And the odd thing is that Krygowski still doesn't even imagine that he is full of shit.

"One was his claim that it's
> > >impossible to initiate a bicycle turn without countersteering. I said I
> > >thought it was, by simply waiting for a random wobble in the proper
> > >direction and sort of accepting it."

Do you suppose that even for one second it occurred to Krygowski that that "random wobble" was initiated by a "random wobble" in the opposite direction and that that was the bike counter-steering itself because the rider is remaining more or less static which causes the bike to counter-steer in one direction and then the other? Jobst was quite right and as usual Krygowski was quite wrong.

Also, tires do not blow off of their rims from extended braking due to chemical changes in the tire compound because a tire is held onto the rim with the bead material and the rim hooks. Neither of these are particularly sensitive to heat. The possible changes on the traction compound effects nothing.

If you're talking about tubular tires it is from the cement melting to the point that the traction of the tire causes the melted glue to allow the tire to rotate and tear off the filler valve. This is chemistry 101 and again Jobst was correct.

I will say though that since I cannot remember Frank having this discussion with Jobst that I withdraw my comment that I never read Krygowski disagree with Jobst though I would hardly rate those as disagreements.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 15:49:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I will say though that since I cannot remember Frank having this discussion with Jobst that I withdraw my comment that I never read Krygowski disagree with Jobst though I would hardly rate those as disagreements.

Perhaps a Google Groups search might stimulate your memory:

RBT postings by Jobst Brandt which mention or involve Frank Krygowski:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=Krygowski+author%3AJobst+author%3ABrandt>

Checking only the first 25 postings, most of the messages involve some
form of discusion between Jobst and Frank. All the messages are prior
to Jan 2011 when he was involved in an accident that eventually proved
fatal. I found a few discusions in which both Jobst and Frank
participated. However, I didn't count them.

Archived bicycle postings and discussions mostly by Jobst:
<https://yarchive.net/bike/index.html> (by Norman Yarvin)
Searching for "Krygowski" doesn't find much because the archive only
searches the content and ignores the headers.

[Andre Jute]

Yah, I read that crap from Franki-boy about random wobbles, and smiled because I thought he was telling a joke. I imagine that Jobst humoured Franki-boy like you would an insane person with a fixation on his own infallibility. It would take too long to explain to an argumentative moron like Krygowski how a bike -- any two-wheeler with deformable tyres -- really works, so I moved on to productive work. I'm not surprised Franki-boy thought he won the argument; that's just who and what the poor man is. The counterintuitive motion of two-wheelers have been well-understood since just after World War II, and a link to the article describing the test results has several times over the years been published on RBT. (My Googlebug Slow Johnny will find it for us if Liebermann is tardy.) I can't even begin to guess why Krygowski is still so ignorant. Anyhow, I'm for my treadmill, on which I will watch the sprint event of the last MotoGP race of the season, with the champion rider still undecided; Ducati have long since won the constructor's crown and the finalists are both Ducati riders from different teams. -- Andre Jute

[Tom Kunich]

At the time Krygowski said it I immediately got three emails about it - he said that the very small deviations of the steering of my Ridley could not be true - that HE knows how bicycles work and large deviations from a path are necessary to balance a bike. Since he doesn't believe that people think him an absolute fool he doesn't believe in emails laughing their ass off at him. Seems like more than I have a bike that has very small deviations from a chosen path even at slow speeds. This all has to do with how much your paddling effects the vertical stability of your bike. Something that Frank doesn't believe in either since he rides an old clunky steel touring bike with a freewheel and probably rides like all people who know themselves superior do.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 21:18:48 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>and a link to the article describing the test results has several times over the years been published on RBT. (My Googlebug Slow Johnny will find it for us if Liebermann is tardy.)

Just search for the words "counter steering". For example:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=counter+steering>
Plenty more articles and videos found using Google search:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=bicycle+%22counter+steering%22>

Of course, there are myths and myth busters:

"Myths Debunked: You CANNOT Lean without Countersteering"
<https://www.renehersecycles.com/myth-13-leaning-without-countersteering/>

Drivel: In about 1985, when I bought a Miyata 610, I became involved
in a casual discussion over what we now call counter steering. I
decided to test what happens if I lock the steering in the dead ahead
position, ride in a straight line and lean the bicycle over. For
locking the steering, I simply tied a rope between the handle bar
grips and the top tube. All I had handy was a some nylon line. Nylon
rope stretches 15% to 30% making it useful for climbing ropes and
sailing sheets where some stretch is needed to absorb the shocks. If
you want better rope, use polyester with only 10% stretch.

Riding was "interesting". When I leaned over, I fought the rope and
instinctively tried to turn the handlebars in the opposite direction.
I tightened the rope until the handlebars started to bend slightly but
I still couldn't lean over without turning. When I tried to lean over
with only light pressure on the handlebars, I lost my balance.

A few years later, I had an idea that involved attaching a
potentiometer (variable resistor) to the steering tube. I used a 10
bit DAC (digital to analog converter), which provided approximately
360 deg / 1024 = 0.035 degree
resolution. Overkill, but it produced an interesting result. I found
it was almost impossible to steer directly ahead and ride in a
straight line. Normal riding, produced a winding or meandering track,
alternating between left and right and synchronized to the position of
the pedals. When the left foot went down, the bicycle would wander to
the right. When the right foot went down, it would wander to the
right. By watching a zero center analog panel meter, I could almost
ride in a somewhat straight line.

Whether my counter steering was instinctive or the result of training
is unknown. I don't recall ever being taught to counter turn. At
some point of learning how to ride various bicycles, counter steering
became habitual.

[AMuzi]

Regarding the natural sinuous path of the front wheel when
riding 'straight', Conan Doyle used that in a story when
Holmes and Watson chanced on a bicycle's trail on a wet
path. Which way was the bicycle traveling? Holmes explained
in his terse style, "Of course the rear wheel always follows
the front." leaving the reader to work out the details.
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 13:59:43 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>Regarding the natural sinuous path of the front wheel when
>riding 'straight', Conan Doyle used that in a story when
>Holmes and Watson chanced on a bicycle's trail on a wet
>path. Which way was the bicycle traveling? Holmes explained
>in his terse style, "Of course the rear wheel always follows
>the front." leaving the reader to work out the details.

Thanks. I used to be a fanatical reader of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
stories, pastiches and parodies, when I was much younger. I recall
the story in "The Adventures of the Priory School", but gave up trying
to deduce how it works. Now, I find a retired college math teacher
has documented the effect:

"Sherlock Holmes and the Bicycle Tracks" (2004)
<https://mathweb.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Supplements/Freshman%20Seminar/bicycle.pdf>

It looks correct, but I need some time to better understand it.

If the bicycle tires have unidirectional tread patterns, such as the
chevrons common on tractor tires, one can deduce the direction of
travel from the direction of the chevrons.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=chevron+tractor+tires&udm=2>

[Frank Krygowski]

As I've said, I think the "CANNOT" is overstating things a bit. I think
a gradual enough turn at a position that's relatively random could be
initiated by using a bike's random wobble.

Here's a procedure that might verify my idea:

Tie only (say) the right handlebar to the frame, so the bars could turn
right but not left. You could not countersteer by turning the bars
leftward. Obviously it would make riding beyond a few feet impossible.

But if you did somehow manage to stay upright while gaining a bit of
speed (maybe by coasting down a ramp?) some percentage of test rides
would have the bike randomly tilting right. At the instant that random
lean occurred, you could let the handlebars pivot rightward and complete
a turn.

I'd try this only on a soft surface. Use of a magic foam hat is up to
the rider, as it should be.

In fact, I'd guess that randomly initiated turns are how little kids
start off. I think the "big countersteer to turn" reflex occurs after
the "little countersteer to balance" reflex.

All this matters little to those who already know everything - or think
they do.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 13:59:43 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

See
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/self-stable-bike/

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

I recall articles on that device. To me it was interesting, but only in
the most theoretical way. I see no practical way it applies to anything
we might normally call a bicycle.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Doug Landau]

> To be fair I’d assume some of it would be to get the qualifications which
> verify the skills knowledge.

To be fair,
a)there is in the book a good deal of information of great import to wheel builder beyond selecting spokes, which is perhaps the smallest part and the most readily available elsewhere
and
b)asking questions here about the subject here, of all places, is asking its readers to regurgitate it to you.

You -were- advised to apply linseed oil to the spoke threads, right?

[Rolf Mantel]

No, thanks to the arrival of a person who feels he must ridicule every
word he says.

[Catrike Rider]

I'm just returning the "favor."

"If you lack the competence or minimal courage and
are unwilling to learn, keep trucking your pedal vehicle to a bike
path and riding back and forth. That's too boring for me, but maybe
someday I'll be in the same state. Although I hope not.

- Frank Krygowski

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/mmxzneaxsdE/m/qYtFPpL3AAAJ

[John B.]

Anyway... you never attended Frank's "how to ride a bicycle" school so
obviously you don't know nothing about how to ride a bicycle... just
like the millions of other people who ride bicycles all over the
world... and who have never heard of anyone named Krygowski. In fact,
I'd hazard a guess that there are some millions right there in the
U.S. who never heard of Krygowski.

There is a monument to the unknown soldier... should there be one
erected one to the unknown bicycle teacher?

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:03:28 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

The poor little guy can't get into his bobblehead that the fact I ride
altogether different from him is none of his business, so I keep
having to remind him of his narcissism.

[Tom Kunich]

Rolf, how could you possibly do anything other than ridicule Krygowski and Liebermann? What have either one EVER added to this group? Krygowski honestly believes that every word out of his mouth is pure gold and Liebermann doesn't even ride a bike and the pictures he showed of his bikes looked like an actual junk yard.

[Doug Landau]

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:47:17 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:

>On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:03:37 AM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> > Am 25.11.2023 um 20:28 schrieb Catrike Rider:

Hee hee LOL!!! I got news for you. None of you know how to initiate a turn in a car, either.

www.tinyurl.com/thetheoryofslowturns

[Tom Kunich]

I actually raced motorcycles all over California so I can make turns fast or slow. In the meantime Krygowski is waiting for a random twitch in the correct direction he want to go.

[Andre Jute]

There's a yesbut here: Statistically, that a bike twitches left once does not mean that it will twitch right next, or even any time. And that's a bike that's been balanced down its centreline to within a picosomethingth of a gramme. A bike maintained by Krygowski, it follows, is therefore certain to turn in one direction much, much more often than in the other direction, so Krygowski will became used to turning, say, left, because the bike twitches him in that direction, and when the bike twitches to the right, his reflexes will betray him, and he will crash. That may explain how little he rides in his old age, probably a correct decision because he's too cheap to spend money on new hips. I could probably knock up an algorithm for how often Franki-boy will crash, and how many times he needs to crash to smash one hip, which will worsen his chances of smashing the second one as well. But I'd rather ride out and paint the different green the beloved isle turns in winter. -- AJ
>

[Frank Krygowski]

On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 4:21:23 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> I actually raced motorcycles all over California so I can make turns fast or slow. In the meantime Krygowski is waiting for a random twitch in the correct direction he want to go.

OK, I have to apologize to John. I just posted that he was apparently the only one here who didn't understand what
I was describing about sudden turns, countersteering, etc.

It turns out Tom couldn't understand it either! But I don't think that's going to make John feel any
better about his own lack of understanding.

-------------------------------------

For Tom: You've apparently missed a huge portion of the discussion. I described having to demonstrate
snap turns (among other emergency maneuvers) in cycling workshops and classes I took, including ones
for teaching certification. I described part of the methods used to test students. That involved performing
those instant turns over and over.

The "wait for a random twitch" is, I believe, how the least skilled cyclists initiate at least some turns. It has
nothing to do with my riding. Actually, I think everyone posting here is far beyond that level.

- Frank Krygowski

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

lucid, rational, fact-based discussion, contrast with someone who thinks he rode a dent out of the top tube of his bike from simple road vibrations and someone else who blatantly stated his only purpose in this forum was to troll Frank.

[Tom Kunich]

It does not "twitch" right or left without a reason and that reason is pressure on the bars from the rider falling right or left from either the road surfaces or the rider trying to retain his balance. This is a complex process and Krygowski's claim that this is in some manner NOT a turn being instigated by a turn of the bars is his usual bullshit since he was never a real engineer at all.

[Andre Jute]

Yes, I know. I was being sarcastic, describing the consequences of Krygowski's ignorance on Franki-boy himself, from a God's-eye-viewpoint. In real life the silliest thing in this thread is Franki-boy's implicit claim that he's such a perfect rider that he never, ever unbalances the bike -- steers it into a turn, as you have it. Trying to educate Franki-boy is like throwing pebbles at a dungheap of ignorance. -- AJ
>

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 12:43:09 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 13:59:43 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>Regarding the natural sinuous path of the front wheel when
>>riding 'straight', Conan Doyle used that in a story when
>>Holmes and Watson chanced on a bicycle's trail on a wet
>>path. Which way was the bicycle traveling? Holmes explained
>>in his terse style, "Of course the rear wheel always follows
>>the front." leaving the reader to work out the details.
>
>Thanks. I used to be a fanatical reader of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>stories, pastiches and parodies, when I was much younger. I recall
>the story in "The Adventures of the Priory School", but gave up trying
>to deduce how it works. Now, I find a retired college math teacher
>has documented the effect:
>
>"Sherlock Holmes and the Bicycle Tracks" (2004)
><https://mathweb.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Supplements/Freshman%20Seminar/bicycle.pdf>

>It looks correct, but I need some time to better understand it.

It is correct, but fails to clearly explain where to put the tangent
line and what to do with it to determine direction of travel. I read
several other web pages, but didn't find anything better. For
example, this article seems to be the least confusing, but fails to
explain clearly how to draw the tangent lines and how to use them.
<https://abakcus.com/article/sherlock-holmes-most-difficult-math-problem-bicycle-tracks/>
However, it does explain a few things (such as riding in a circle)
which is why I included it.

This YouTube video explains it clearly:
"Bicycle Tracks - Which Way Did the Bicycle Go?"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETnbfZUW8zY>

Also, here is my contribution to the muddle:

1. Determine which tracks are the front and rear tires. The
amplitude of the rear track is less than that of the front track.

2. Select any random tangent point on the rear bicycle track.

3. Draw a line through this tangent point. The line should intersect
the front tire track at two points. Do this several times with
several tangents.

4. The tangent lines that are in the forward direction are all
(approximately) the same length. The lines that vary substantially,
are in the trailing direction.

>If the bicycle tires have unidirectional tread patterns, such as the
>chevrons common on tractor tires, one can deduce the direction of
>travel from the direction of the chevrons.
><https://www.google.com/search?q=chevron+tractor+tires&udm=2>

That's cheating and doesn't account for the rider who installs his
tires backwards.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 19:34:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>4. The tangent lines that are in the forward direction are all
>(approximately) the same length. The lines that vary substantially,
>are in the trailing direction.

Oops. That should be:

4. The tangent lines that are in the forward direction are all
(approximately) the same length. The lines that vary substantially,

are in the opposite direction.
^^^^^^^^