Boys! Boys! Settle down!
 

Don Pearce said:

I'd like to know what you believe you are today - weren't you a
scriptwriter for Paul Hogan or somebody just the other day?

Speaking of mindless cross-posting, Don ....

Those of us new to this important discussion about typography have no idea
what either "24 (!!)" or "24 (11)" signifies. Don't let that stop you folks
from cluttering up a bunch of newsgroups with your arcane discussions of
obscure trivia, though.


P.S. Don't you hate Poopie B'ar?

Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and adaptive suspension
 

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 06:28:14 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

I love it!, I make a typing error, I pull Pearce up on some wildly
inaccurate obiter dicta, and suddenly it's the rack and the water
torture for me, with ever wilder accusations of witchcraft flying for
my impertinence of pointing out to Pope Don-Don that the earth isn't
flat and sun doesn't revolve around the Earth:

On Sep 9, 5:17 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:

So you have finally done the maths for you (or more likely asked
someone to do it for you),

and

Do you really need to quote an "authority" (and by the way you can't
quote yourself as an authority) for such a trivial piece of maths.

and

Unfortunately you have no idea of the physics of cycles or you would
have realised that this is not what sets the braking limit of a bike.

and

and had gravity explained to you,

and

Welll, well, so now you claim to have heard of gravity. Is there no
end to your ability?

and

realise that you posted a heap of ****.

and

Andre you lying little toad, I was responding to your claim to have a
bike that could manage 1.05g.

and

You fouled up your claim of how well your bike stopped because you
were in boasting mode.

and

I know that by tomorrow you will be a leading
Tour de France competitor so you know what you are talking about,

and

the simple fact is that your mouth ran away with you and you didn't
realise your bluff was going to get called.

and

Or are we now supposed to believe that
in the imaginary kingdom of Andre, Usenet is a typeset service?

proudly signed:

d

complete with commercial advertising:

Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

Tell us, Donnie-boy, does your wee willie stand up straight and twitch
northwards when you abuse your betters?

Andre Jute

So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
please!

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Typography 101 for "engineers" and other blustering fools, was Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and adaptive suspension
 

On Sep 9, 6:16 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 06:06:13 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:



Andre Jute:
Oops, clearly a typo. My file copy says "24 (!!) feet". Can't account
for what happened to turn the two exclamations into the main
message...

Blustering Don Pearce
That change is NOT what happens in a typo; a typo would have produced
"24 (11) feet".

Jute:
You don't know **** about typography either, do you Donnie-boy?.Buy
one of my books on typography, listed at my netsite, and you will be
better informed in future. If you pay attention, of course, and don't
bluster about how much more you know just because you're Don Pearce.

Predictable Pearce:
Clearly more than you if you think that typing 11 instead of 24 has
anything to do with typography. Or are we now supposed to believe that
in the imaginary kingdom of Andre, Usenet is a typeset service?

Of course it is a typeset service, you moron. it is self-service
typeset service. You use the keyboard to type in the text. It is the
same keyboard used in typesetting. The exclamation mark and arabic
numeral one are on the same key. Why don't you inform yourself before
you spout off, Donnie-boy?

What have 11 and exclamation marks to do with this, idiot? Your error
was between 11 and 24.

See, Pearcey, in a moment of literary weakness, because I was writing
to you, a known sluggard and smug and aggressive with it, I put two
exclamations in parenthesis behind the number 24 to draw attention to
the fact that I knew it was exceptionally good. Now -- only a brief
digression which the short attention spans like you may skip --
normally I would come down with a sarcastic remark on anyone who uses
two exclamation points when one will do, but in your case I thought
I'd better permit myself the superfluity. Okay, back to the
exclamation points and the number 11. If you type two exclamation
points on your keyboard, you do it by holding down the shift key and
typing the number 1, yes? Try it now so you don't lose the step and
start making a fool of yourself again with empty abuse. Right, now put
a piece of text with two exclamations in it in your word processor,
select the text, and then go find the availble fonts you can change
that text into. Keep trying them one by one. Eventually you will find
several that put what to an typographical ignoramus like you might
appear to be garbage symbols (only the empty square is, and then only
sometimes) in the place of the exclamations, or arabic numeral 1. If
you can't work it out from there, just ask and I'll patronize you some
more.

And no, Usenet is not typeset. You write your stuff, and it goes where
it goes. When you set type you can insert white metal shims to adjust
the type - that is typesetting.

You must have learned your little minimum bit of exceedingly
misleading "knowledge" when you were a very small boy, and now be very
old. Or perhaps your parents were too poor to afford an up-to-date
encyclopedia. Modern typesetting has been done on computer keyboards,
and by computer instruction, where fonts are interchangeble for the
same text, for nearly half a century.

This is an excellent example of your blustering arrogance, Pearce. You
are talking to someone who knows the subject, who has an international
reputation in it and who has earned a rich living from it, who has
written several standard texts on the subject, who knows just about
everyone who knows more about it than he does (and they too have
written texts in a seies of books of which I was general editor) --
but you claim to know more.

You have already shown that you don't understand the content of your
books by your mistaken reference to friction as being the controlling
factor in slowing a bike.

You keep making the same arrogant mistakes, Don. First, you clearly
don't understand the difference between "controlling factor" and
"limiting factor". Where were you educated, if you were? You should
ask for your tuition back. I quoted a piece from my book that speaks
of the upper limit of retardation of any wheeled vehicle, you
immediately, quite contrary to the quoted text, presume I'm speaking
of "controlling factor", which further leads us to wonder if you have
a comprehension difficulty with the English language. Secondly, you
presume that the small piece I quoted from my book to put you down
like an impertinent puppy, is the entire entry on brakes. It isn't,
there are pages more, including a big section on weight transfer,
which may be what you're trying to accuse me of not knowing about
(that's a good example of how one puts the boot in without opening
oneself to accusions of crude brutality, hmm?).

I assume the same holds true for every
subject you care to cut and paste into something thick and tedious.

You don't assume, Donnie-boy, you presume upon my patience. My book on
automobiles was approved of and given to junior engineers as their
bible by a major motor manufacturer. Please explain to me why I should
believe some blustering internet-"engineer" like you knows any better
than professional engineers?

The same applies to my books on reprographics (of which typography is
a part); they are the officially sanctioned texts of people who know
their business. But Don Pearce, who postures on the net as an
"engineer", knows better! Holy ****, who do you expect to believe you,
Pearcey?

Get real, man. You don't know ****, and you never will until you
change your attitude.

I'd like to know what you believe you are today - weren't you a
scriptwriter for Paul Hogan or somebody just the other day?

Come on Pearcey, it isn't my fault that you're a one-tune dullard. If
you weren't so frightened of the natural curiosity of your monkey
genes, so much more set on dignity above knowledge, you too could be
clever and widely knowledgeable. As for Hogan, you're lying again, I
didn't say I was a scriptwriter for him, I said I threw out a few one-
liners for him when we used to eat in the same caff on King's Cross,
an entirely different matter, as you would know if you knew anything
at all about show business. But I'll let you make a fool of yourself
again by claiming that's an entirely different career before I shoot
you down.

d
--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

Andre Jute
Riding tall

Typography 101 for "engineers" and other blustering fools, was Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and adaptive suspension
 

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 07:08:43 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

Andre Jute
Riding tall

Bored now. You've postured once too often.

Get something else wrong so we can pull that to pieces, please. If we
can be bothered to deal with the ensuing verbal diarrhoea, that is.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Typography 101 for "engineers" and other blustering fools, was Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and adaptive suspension
 

On Sep 9, 7:23 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 07:08:43 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

Andre Jute
Riding tall

Bored now. You've postured once too often.

Oh, is that what you call it when someone pulls you up when you
postulate and demonstrates that he speaks with far greater authority
than you do on the the subject under discussion.

Get something else wrong so we can pull that to pieces, please.

Exactly my point, Pearce, that you're malicious scum entirely
uninterested in sharing knowledge or glee, that you are here merely in
an attempt to make yourself look like a big man by continually
"proving" that someone else is wrong.

Here are the samples of your dumb malice from a single exchange:

On Sep 9, 5:17 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:

So you have finally done the maths for you (or more likely asked
someone to do it for you),

and

Do you really need to quote an "authority" (and by the way you can't
quote yourself as an authority) for such a trivial piece of maths.

and

Unfortunately you have no idea of the physics of cycles or you would
have realised that this is not what sets the braking limit of a bike.

and

and had gravity explained to you,

and

Welll, well, so now you claim to have heard of gravity. Is there no
end to your ability?

and

realise that you posted a heap of ****.

and

Andre you lying little toad, I was responding to your claim to have a
bike that could manage 1.05g.

and

You fouled up your claim of how well your bike stopped because you
were in boasting mode.

and

I know that by tomorrow you will be a leading
Tour de France competitor so you know what you are talking about,

and

the simple fact is that your mouth ran away with you and you didn't
realise your bluff was going to get called.

and

Or are we now supposed to believe that
in the imaginary kingdom of Andre, Usenet is a typeset service?

proudly signed:

d

complete with commercial advertising:

Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

You're scum, Pearce.

Andre Jute

Is Don Pearce actually an engineer? was Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and adaptive suspension
 

On Sep 9, 6:35 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:

So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
please!

In the thread "Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and
adaptive suspension" Don Pearce told us:

"that comes out at 1.05g" complete with his formula for "Anyone who
wants to do the sum the easy way.... (30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g".

So let's do the sum and see what we get: (30*30)/(2*11) = 40.9. Nope,
Pearcey, that isn't 1.05. Let's try using compatible units, hmm? 30kph
is 18.64mph, so now let's try (18.64*18.64)/(11*2) = 15.8. Oh dear,
not 1.05 either. Looks like you got a simple formula wrong, Pearcey.
So now, let a reliable authority straighten you out:

"The maximum braking force that can be applied to a vehicle through
its wheels -- the mass of air having its own retarding force -- is
limited by the friction between the tire and the road, and is equal to
the weight of the vehicle multiplied by the coefficient of friction.
On a dry pavement, this coefficient could be as high as 1; with a
coefficient of unity, retardation would be 1g or 32.2ft/s^2 and the
stopping distance in feet would be V^2/29.9 where V is the speed in
mph. I must stress though that this is on an ideal surface such as
does not exist outside a test facility..."
(Andre Jute: Designing and Building Special Cars, Batsford,
London 1985, p98)

This correct formula, transformed just slightly, permits us to
calculate average retardation in fractions of one gravity when we know
the entry speed and the stopping distance (which is what poor Pearcey
is trying to do):

V^2/(29.9*D)

where V is speed in mph and D is stopping distance in feet. Taking
Pearcey's of 24ft from 30kph, we need first to convert 30kph to mph
(which Pearce overlooked). So (18.64*18.64)/(29.9*11) gives us an
average retardation for Pearce's numbers of 1.05g

At last, the right answer, after applying expert knowledge to
Pearcey's errors. So how does Pearce get the formula wrong, forget to
regularize the measurements, and still get the right answer? Simple.
He tells us himself that he "just pop this into Google. I rarely use
an other calculator these days."

In short, Pearce doesn't know how to do a simple engineering
calculation, he gets formula wrong, he doesn't know to use compatible
measures, he doesn't understand what he is working with, he depends on
Google's idiot service to somehow give him the right answer. Then he
gets abusive when it is pointed out to him that he doesn't fully
(that's putting it very politely indeed!) understand the principles,
that he confuses the theoretical limit of deceleration of a wheeled
vehicle with the controlling factor under a particular set of
circumstance.

Arthur C Clarke said that any advanced technology will appear to a
savage as magic. Don Pearce's magic for technology he doesn't
understand is the Google calculator. He has faith in it. He gets very
angry when its use is questioned.

All this, especially Pearce's vicious attempts to prove everyone else
wrong, and his anger when his errors are pointed out, do make one
wonder how Pearce can ponce around calling himself an engineer.

Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what
they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain

Is Don Pearce actually an engineer? was Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and adaptive suspension
 

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:48:11 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

On Sep 9, 6:35 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:

So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
please!

In the thread "Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and
adaptive suspension" Don Pearce told us:

"that comes out at 1.05g" complete with his formula for "Anyone who
wants to do the sum the easy way.... (30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g".


Jute, you are a foul, lying weasel. Despite your lying editing-out of
the relevant words (from within a line even!) I told you to put that
formula into Google. Although it suits you to pretend you don't know,
Google handles all the different units quite happily, and provides
exactly the right answer, which is 1.05g. If you want to do it
manually, you must convert kph to metres per second and feet into
metres then divide the result by 9.81. Want to do all that the long
way when Google will handle the unit conversions for you?

You really are a pointless sack of ****.

d


--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Is Don Pearce actually an engineer? was Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and adaptive suspension
 

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:48:11 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

On Sep 9, 6:35 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:

So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
please!

In the thread "Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and
adaptive suspension" Don Pearce told us:

"that comes out at 1.05g" complete with his formula for "Anyone who
wants to do the sum the easy way.... (30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g".

Jute, you are a foul, lying weasel. Despite your lying editing-out of
the relevant words (from within a line even!) I told you to put that
formula into Google. Although it suits you to pretend you don't know,
Google handles all the different units quite happily, and provides
exactly the right answer, which is 1.05g. If you want to do it
manually, you must convert kph to metres per second and feet into
metres then divide the result by 9.81. Want to do all that the long
way when Google will handle the unit conversions for you?

Don, Andre's observations on your use of Google formulas may finally
explain the mystery of your apparent lack of understanding of much of
the material you post to usenet. The simple Parroting of information
found on Google would go a long way towards a possible explanation.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Is Don Pearce actually an engineer? was Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and adaptive suspension
 

On Sep 9, 1:19 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:





On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:48:11 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

On Sep 9, 6:35 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:

So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
please!

In the thread "Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and
adaptive suspension" Don Pearce told us:

"that comes out at 1.05g" complete with his formula for "Anyone who
wants to do the sum the easy way.... (30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g".

Jute, you are a foul, lying weasel. Despite your lying editing-out of
the relevant words (from within a line even!) I told you to put that
formula into Google. Although it suits you to pretend you don't know,
Google handles all the different units quite happily, and provides
exactly the right answer, which is 1.05g. If you want to do it
manually, you must convert kph to metres per second and feet into
metres then divide the result by 9.81. Want to do all that the long
way when Google will handle the unit conversions for you?

Don, Andre's observations on your use of Google formulas may finally
explain the mystery of your apparent lack of understanding of much of
the material you post to usenet. The simple Parroting of information
found on Google would go a long way towards a possible explanation.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yikes, John.

Just change 11 feet to 3.353 meters.
30kph = 30,000 mph/60/60 = 8.33 mps.

Comes to a bit over 1.05G whomever calculates it.

Now, let's use Mr. Jute's Formula:

Oops... same result.

Now the bottom line is that an individual by his own admission at 1/8
ton (for gentleness, we will call it a "short" ton of 2000 lbs. avdp.
= 250 pounds/2.2 = 113.6 kg.) goes from 8.3 mps to 0 mps in 3.353
meters... whatever smoke and mirrors are applied and surrounding it.
And we will allow the bicycle as being part of that short ton. A long
ton (2200 pounds, 1000kg) only makes the impact a bit more painful.

Now just use your basic intuitive knowledge, no math required. Grade-
school science. G = 32/s/s. One second, fallen 16 feet, speed = 32fps.
2 seconds, fallen 48 feet, speed = 64fps. And so forth.

That is very nearly the functioning equivalent of running into a brick
wall. If you want an equivalent for it, imagine you have fallen ~ 14
feet onto whatever... that is about what you would be doing at the 14-
foot mark. Oh, sorry, you have fallen about 4.26 meters.

So, gravity gives you ~8.3mps in 4.26 meters (9.8M in 1S). Jute's
fantasy machine does it in less (3.36M). Therefore in more than 1G.
How much more is not the point. But 0.05g is certainly close enough.

As Jute's amanuensis, you need to pick your battles more aptly.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Is Don Pearce actually an engineer? was Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and adaptive suspension
 

In article . com,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 9, 1:19 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:48:11 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

On Sep 9, 6:35 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:

So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
please!

In the thread "Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and
adaptive suspension" Don Pearce told us:

"that comes out at 1.05g" complete with his formula for "Anyone who
wants to do the sum the easy way.... (30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g".

Jute, you are a foul, lying weasel. Despite your lying editing-out of
the relevant words (from within a line even!) I told you to put that
formula into Google. Although it suits you to pretend you don't know,
Google handles all the different units quite happily, and provides
exactly the right answer, which is 1.05g. If you want to do it
manually, you must convert kph to metres per second and feet into
metres then divide the result by 9.81. Want to do all that the long
way when Google will handle the unit conversions for you?

Don, Andre's observations on your use of Google formulas may finally
explain the mystery of your apparent lack of understanding of much of
the material you post to usenet. The simple Parroting of information
found on Google would go a long way towards a possible explanation.

Yikes, John.

Just change 11 feet to 3.353 meters.
30kph = 30,000 mph/60/60 = 8.33 mps.

Comes to a bit over 1.05G whomever calculates it.

Now, let's use Mr. Jute's Formula:

Oops... same result.

Now the bottom line is that an individual by his own admission at 1/8
ton (for gentleness, we will call it a "short" ton of 2000 lbs. avdp.
= 250 pounds/2.2 = 113.6 kg.) goes from 8.3 mps to 0 mps in 3.353
meters... whatever smoke and mirrors are applied and surrounding it.
And we will allow the bicycle as being part of that short ton. A long
ton (2200 pounds, 1000kg) only makes the impact a bit more painful.

Now just use your basic intuitive knowledge, no math required. Grade-
school science. G = 32/s/s. One second, fallen 16 feet, speed = 32fps.
2 seconds, fallen 48 feet, speed = 64fps. And so forth.

That is very nearly the functioning equivalent of running into a brick
wall. If you want an equivalent for it, imagine you have fallen ~ 14
feet onto whatever... that is about what you would be doing at the 14-
foot mark. Oh, sorry, you have fallen about 4.26 meters.

So, gravity gives you ~8.3mps in 4.26 meters (9.8M in 1S). Jute's
fantasy machine does it in less (3.36M). Therefore in more than 1G.
How much more is not the point. But 0.05g is certainly close enough.

As Jute's amanuensis, you need to pick your battles more aptly.

Peter, your problem is that you have not yet correctly identified the
"battle". This bicycle stopping distance business has nothing to do
with it, I haven't even been following the math and computations which
are of minimal interest to me in this instance, what I was playing off
of and generalizing on was Andre's mention of Don's use of Google, which
I suddenly realized explained a lot of things.

If Don choses to take exception to my general comments on his modis
operandi with respect to Google, then I may have to get more specific,
in the mean time it will be interesting to see if you can identify the
specific "battle" that prompted my comment, hint it is totally unrelated
to Andre or any of his threads.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/