Re: Helmets (was: Paramount)

[Tim McNamara]

In article <46908ae3$0$31278$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <46904876$0$30606$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
> > Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> In article <468fefe8$0$20547$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
> >>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>>> In article <468fb951$0$4878$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
> >>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <468f3c5a$0$8028$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
> >>>>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> {Note all context removed. It's pathological!}
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which is a belief not an established fact.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A) It's common sense;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Common sense means "I already know what's true, don't confuse
> >>>>> me with the facts." If common sense worked, we wouldn't need
> >>>>> science.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, common sense is if I hit a table with a hammer the impact
> >>>> will be harder if I don't put down a pad first. (It's called a
> >>>> BARRIER or BUFFER, you see.)
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for proving my point so eloquently.
> >>
> >> Tell you what. Prove that a hammer has less impact on a table
> >> with no pad in place and I'll retract every word. Hell, I'll even
> >> stop wearing a lid! (Maybe.)
> >
> > Force = mass * acceleration.
>
> "Impact". Not "force". HTH!

Impact is a consequence of force, Bill.

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <46908ae3$0$31278$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <46904876$0$30606$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>> In article <468fefe8$0$20547$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <468fb951$0$4878$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>>>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <468f3c5a$0$8028$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>>>>>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> {Note all context removed. It's pathological!}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is a belief not an established fact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A) It's common sense;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Common sense means "I already know what's true, don't confuse
>>>>>>> me with the facts." If common sense worked, we wouldn't need
>>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, common sense is if I hit a table with a hammer the impact
>>>>>> will be harder if I don't put down a pad first. (It's called a
>>>>>> BARRIER or BUFFER, you see.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for proving my point so eloquently.
>>>>
>>>> Tell you what. Prove that a hammer has less impact on a table
>>>> with no pad in place and I'll retract every word. Hell, I'll even
>>>> stop wearing a lid! (Maybe.)
>>>
>>> Force = mass * acceleration.
>>
>> "Impact". Not "force". HTH!
>
> Impact is a consequence of force, Bill.

Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with the same
/force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the table's surface
is reduced.

A helmet won't lessen the /force/ of a head falling on pavement. It WILL
reduce the /impact/.

Hope this wasn't too complicated for you, Tim.

BS

[Joe Riel]

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> writes:

> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with the same
> /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the table's surface
> is reduced.
>
> A helmet won't lessen the /force/ of a head falling on pavement. It WILL
> reduce the /impact/.

The peak force is decreased. The impulse (momentum) remains the same.
That is, impulse is the product f*dt. For a hammer with mass m and
velocity v, the impulse transferred to the table is

f*dt = m*v

By increasing dt (the duration of the collision), f is decreased.

--
Joe Riel

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 11:55:06 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>A helmet won't lessen the /force/ of a head falling on pavement. It WILL
>reduce the /impact/.

What?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Tim McNamara]

In article <4691331f$0$8933$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <46908ae3$0$31278$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
> > Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> In article <46904876$0$30606$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
> >>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>>> In article <468fefe8$0$20547$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
> >>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <468fb951$0$4878$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
> >>>>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <468f3c5a$0$8028$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
> >>>>>>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> {Note all context removed. It's pathological!}
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which is a belief not an established fact.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A) It's common sense;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Common sense means "I already know what's true, don't confuse
> >>>>>>> me with the facts." If common sense worked, we wouldn't need
> >>>>>>> science.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, common sense is if I hit a table with a hammer the impact
> >>>>>> will be harder if I don't put down a pad first. (It's called
> >>>>>> a BARRIER or BUFFER, you see.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for proving my point so eloquently.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell you what. Prove that a hammer has less impact on a table
> >>>> with no pad in place and I'll retract every word. Hell, I'll
> >>>> even stop wearing a lid! (Maybe.)
> >>>
> >>> Force = mass * acceleration.
> >>
> >> "Impact". Not "force". HTH!
> >
> > Impact is a consequence of force, Bill.
>
> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the
> table's surface is reduced.

That depends on a few variables, Bill.

> A helmet won't lessen the /force/ of a head falling on pavement. It
> WILL reduce the /impact/.

For reasons already elucidated to you, that is not necessarily true, nor
has it been clearly demonstrated to reduce the risk of brain injury.

> Hope this wasn't too complicated for you, Tim.

Not for me, Bill, but you seem to be struggling with it.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Jul 8, 2:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>
> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with the same
> /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the table's surface
> is reduced.

No, force does NOT remain constant.

> A helmet won't lessen the /force/ of a head falling on pavement. It WILL
> reduce the /impact/.

Bill, you really shouldn't be writing in a technical newsgroup. You
apparently don't understand force, nor impact. You're merely making
yourself look worse.

> Hope this wasn't too complicated for you, Tim.

:-) Gotta love it when someone struts and preens while displaying
their mistakes and ignorance!

I'd suggest a long session with a good physics book and a tutor - but
there's little chance of that happening.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tim McNamara]

In article <87d4z2sl4p.fsf@san.rr.com>, Joe Riel <joer@san.rr.com>
wrote:

> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> writes:
>
> > Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
> > the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on
> > the table's surface is reduced.
> >
> > A helmet won't lessen the /force/ of a head falling on pavement.
> > It WILL reduce the /impact/.
>
> The peak force is decreased. The impulse (momentum) remains the
> same. That is, impulse is the product f*dt. For a hammer with mass m
> and velocity v, the impulse transferred to the table is
>
> f*dt = m*v
>
> By increasing dt (the duration of the collision), f is decreased.

Assuming that dt is increased, which is dependent on a number of
nonspecified variables. With enough juggling, Bill can come up with a
way to make his scenario work that way. The problem is applying that to
helmets.

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <4691331f$0$8933$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <46908ae3$0$31278$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>> In article <46904876$0$30606$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <468fefe8$0$20547$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>>>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <468fb951$0$4878$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>>>>>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <468f3c5a$0$8028$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>>>>>>>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> {Note all context removed. It's pathological!}
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which is a belief not an established fact.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A) It's common sense;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Common sense means "I already know what's true, don't confuse
>>>>>>>>> me with the facts." If common sense worked, we wouldn't need
>>>>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, common sense is if I hit a table with a hammer the impact
>>>>>>>> will be harder if I don't put down a pad first. (It's called
>>>>>>>> a BARRIER or BUFFER, you see.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for proving my point so eloquently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell you what. Prove that a hammer has less impact on a table
>>>>>> with no pad in place and I'll retract every word. Hell, I'll
>>>>>> even stop wearing a lid! (Maybe.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Force = mass * acceleration.
>>>>
>>>> "Impact". Not "force". HTH!
>>>
>>> Impact is a consequence of force, Bill.
>>
>> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
>> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the
>> table's surface is reduced.
>
> That depends on a few variables, Bill.
>
>> A helmet won't lessen the /force/ of a head falling on pavement. It
>> WILL reduce the /impact/.
>
> For reasons already elucidated to you, that is not necessarily true,
> nor has it been clearly demonstrated to reduce the risk of brain
> injury.

Brain injury?!? How about a nasty owwie?
>
>> Hope this wasn't too complicated for you, Tim.
>
> Not for me, Bill, but you seem to be struggling with it.

Not a bit, thanks.

BS

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <87d4z2sl4p.fsf@san.rr.com>, Joe Riel <joer@san.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> writes:
>>
>>> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
>>> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on
>>> the table's surface is reduced.
>>>
>>> A helmet won't lessen the /force/ of a head falling on pavement.
>>> It WILL reduce the /impact/.
>>
>> The peak force is decreased. The impulse (momentum) remains the
>> same. That is, impulse is the product f*dt. For a hammer with mass m
>> and velocity v, the impulse transferred to the table is
>>
>> f*dt = m*v
>>
>> By increasing dt (the duration of the collision), f is decreased.
>
> Assuming that dt is increased, which is dependent on a number of
> nonspecified variables. With enough juggling, Bill can come up with a
> way to make his scenario work that way. The problem is applying that
> to helmets.

If it's jiggling, it's too loose.

Bill "La Trek" S.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:35:56 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>Brain injury?!? How about a nasty owwie?

You will get little or no argument that helmets can reduce cuts and
scrape over the area they cover, if you fall and hit your head that
way.

In earlier arguments you were talking about helmets prevent serious
injuries or death. Which are you talking about now?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Jul 8, 6:35 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> > For reasons already elucidated to you, that is not necessarily true,
> > nor has it been clearly demonstrated to reduce the risk of brain
> > injury.
>
> Brain injury?!? How about a nasty owwie?

If you're implying you wear helmets only to protect against minor
scrapes or whatever, I'm curious about whether you wear knee
protectors. Scraped knees seem to be the number on injury of
cyclists, after all.


>
> >> Hope this wasn't too complicated for you, Tim.
>
> > Not for me, Bill, but you seem to be struggling with it.
>
> Not a bit, thanks.

Sorry, Bill. As usual, you _think_ you understand. As usual, you're
wrong.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tim McNamara]

In article <vbr293l42l4jb84snd6mj99o8rjkcsfb5e@4ax.com>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:35:56 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
> >Brain injury?!? How about a nasty owwie?
>
> You will get little or no argument that helmets can reduce cuts and
> scrape over the area they cover, if you fall and hit your head that
> way.

I certainly wouldn't argue against helmets as providing protection from
abrasions, lacerations or bruises.

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <vbr293l42l4jb84snd6mj99o8rjkcsfb5e@4ax.com>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:35:56 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>> wrote: {ABOUT WHAT?!?}

>>> Brain injury?!? How about a nasty owwie?

>> You will get little or no argument that helmets can reduce cuts and
>> scrape over the area they cover, if you fall and hit your head that
>> way.

> I certainly wouldn't argue against helmets as providing protection
> from abrasions, lacerations or bruises.

Then why do you keep injecting brain injuries into the conversation?
(Snipped above...assume by The Master.)

[Bill Sornson]

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 8, 6:35 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>
>>> For reasons already elucidated to you, that is not necessarily true,
>>> nor has it been clearly demonstrated to reduce the risk of brain
>>> injury.
>>
>> Brain injury?!? How about a nasty owwie?
>
> If you're implying you wear helmets only to protect against minor
> scrapes or whatever, I'm curious about whether you wear knee
> protectors. Scraped knees seem to be the number on injury of
> cyclists, after all.

Whatever you say, Frank. (Hint: gashing open one's skull is hardly
equivalent to scraping one's knee.)


>>>> Hope this wasn't too complicated for you, Tim.
>>
>>> Not for me, Bill, but you seem to be struggling with it.
>>
>> Not a bit, thanks.
>
> Sorry, Bill. As usual, you _think_ you understand. As usual, you're
> wrong.

How SHALL I go on? (Of course, you DELETED what I wrote because it's 100%
correct except in AHZ-land.)

Classic stuff. WELCOME BACK! LOL

[Tim McNamara]

In article <46919bb7$0$20590$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <vbr293l42l4jb84snd6mj99o8rjkcsfb5e@4ax.com>, John
> > Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:35:56 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> >> wrote: {ABOUT WHAT?!?}
>
> >>> Brain injury?!? How about a nasty owwie?
>
> >> You will get little or no argument that helmets can reduce cuts
> >> and scrape over the area they cover, if you fall and hit your head
> >> that way.
>
> > I certainly wouldn't argue against helmets as providing protection
> > from abrasions, lacerations or bruises.
>
> Then why do you keep injecting brain injuries into the conversation?

Because that's what helmets are marketed to protect against.

[Bill Sornson]

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
>> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the
>> table's surface is reduced.
>
> No, force does NOT remain constant.

You guys are pathetic. You're so emotionally invested in this lid biz that
you won't even admit that padding reduces the impact of, for example, a
hammer on a table top. (Or a golf robot swing thing hitting a bare golf
ball and then one with a little fuzzy sweater on it.)

Frank IS right about one thing, at least. These helmet threads do not
belong in wreck tech. It's not a technical subject. (In fact it's
literally subjective.)

The topic in general and of MHLs in particular does have a place in cycling
newsgroups, of course: rec.soc or .laws, not .tech.

Go ride your bikes.

Flame away, Frank -- you're plonked.

BS

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Jul 8, 10:27 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 6:35 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> >>> For reasons already elucidated to you, that is not necessarily true,
> >>> nor has it been clearly demonstrated to reduce the risk of brain
> >>> injury.
>
> >> Brain injury?!? How about a nasty owwie?
>
> > If you're implying you wear helmets only to protect against minor
> > scrapes or whatever, I'm curious about whether you wear knee
> > protectors. Scraped knees seem to be the number on injury of
> > cyclists, after all.
>
> Whatever you say, Frank. (Hint: gashing open one's skull is hardly
> equivalent to scraping one's knee.)

That's sloppy thinking, or crude distortion.

"Gashing one's skull open," while wonderfully graphic, isn't what
would fit your babyish description as a "nasty owwie." At worst, a
"nasty owwie" of the head would be a cut to the scalp.

So give us some facts, Bill, instead of the usual handwringing and
fearmongering. How about comparing the long-term medical outcomes of
a cut to the scalp, versus a cut knee? How about a comparison of the
number of cut scalps to cut knees each year? How about the number of
miles ridden, on average, between each sort of injury?

Of course, if it's just a cut scalp, it's not any more serious than a
cut knee. And medical data shows those injuries are rare while
cycling anyway, much more rare than, say, lacerations and abrasions to
the knee. They're rare enough that it's NOT necessary to wear a
special hat to protect against them.

And if it were necessary, a cotton cycling cap would probably give
most of the same benefit. After all, we do remember one poster who
humorously mentioned many times that his knit stocking cap "saved his
life," just as others claim their helmets did!

> (Of course, you DELETED what I wrote ...

You complain about people who say you're not very intelligent. But do
you ever stop to think that you're the ONLY one who can't grasp that
Usenet shows context in prior posts? Despite having it explained to
you literally dozens of times?

Sheesh!

- Frank Krygowski

[Michael Press]

In article
<1183950676.751738.96690@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.co m>,
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> You complain about people who say you're not very intelligent. But do
> you ever stop to think that you're the ONLY one who can't grasp that
> Usenet shows context in prior posts? Despite having it explained to
> you literally dozens of times?

When you are using google groups
you are not necessarily fully adhering to
Usenet standards and usage.
gg shows context through a web interface
and does not always quote context in replies.

--
Michael Press

[M-gineering]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 2:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
>>> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the
>>> table's surface is reduced.
>> No, force does NOT remain constant.
>
> You guys are pathetic. You're so emotionally invested in this lid biz that
> you won't even admit that padding reduces the impact of, for example, a
> hammer on a table top.

We might if you put it this way, but those boring engineering types get
belingerent if laymen start using force, velocity, kinetic energy etc
interchangably ;)


--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:18:20 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>These helmet threads do not
>belong in wreck tech. It's not a technical subject. (In fact it's
>literally subjective.)

It's arguably not bike tech so perhaps it doesn't belong here, but
it's assurdely technical in the sense that numbers and logic can
improve our understanding of what helmets tend to do or not due.

To say that is subjective is a clear example of your disdain for
trying to better understand reality. That's why you are wrong on so
many things.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Jul 9, 3:18 am, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 2:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>
> >> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
> >> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the
> >> table's surface is reduced.
>
> > No, force does NOT remain constant.
>
> You guys are pathetic. You're so emotionally invested in this lid biz that
> you won't even admit that padding reduces the impact of, for example, a
> hammer on a table top. (Or a golf robot swing thing hitting a bare golf
> ball and then one with a little fuzzy sweater on it.)
>
> Frank IS right about one thing, at least. These helmet threads do not
> belong in wreck tech. It's not a technical subject. (In fact it's
> literally subjective.)

Actually, discussion on whether helmets reduce "force" or "impact" ARE
technical. Those terms have precise meanings, and they can be used
correctly or wrongly. (IOW, some posts really do deserve red marks.)
Many of us can learn from those technical discussions.

Similarly, evaluation of helmet performance data is math-intensive and
technical, as is a lot of the helmet issue. Granted, your typical
insults (things like "Oh, go smack your head against a wall! LOL!")
are decidedly non-technical.

But I note that your little attempt at physics ("Force remains
constant") ended in dismal failure. It's probably best that you stay
out of technical discussions.

- Frank Krygowski

[Bill Sornson]

M-gineering wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 8, 2:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
>>>> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on
>>>> the table's surface is reduced.
>>> No, force does NOT remain constant.
>>
>> You guys are pathetic. You're so emotionally invested in this lid
>> biz that you won't even admit that padding reduces the impact of,
>> for example, a hammer on a table top.
>
> We might if you put it this way, but those boring engineering types
> get belingerent if laymen start using force, velocity, kinetic energy
> etc interchangably ;)

Agreed...but I didn't. I /did/ say that force is not necessarily the same
as impact, when some variable (such as a pad or buffer or barrier) is
introduced.

I mistakenly read this group to learn about /cycling/ matters, since I'm not
much of a mechanic and am relatively new to road bikes. A helmet is just a
"plastic hat", after all; you'd think all these "boring engineering types"
would be above discussing such a lowly subject...TO DEATH. <eg>

Oh, well. JB will come along and post a political piece soon and get the
group back on track...

BS

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

M-gineering aka Marten Gerritsen wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 8, 2:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
>>>> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the
>>>> table's surface is reduced.
>>> No, force does NOT remain constant.
>>
>> You guys are pathetic. You're so emotionally invested in this lid biz
>> that you won't even admit that padding reduces the impact of, for
>> example, a hammer on a table top.
>
> We might if you put it this way, but those boring engineering types get
> belingerent if laymen start using force, velocity, kinetic energy etc
> interchangably ;)

Many in the US disdain science and logic, and prefer to go on "gut"
reaction and/or faith based answers (this includes many members of
Congress and the Executive branch). Hey, it is easier to trash science
and engineering mechanics [1] than it is to understand them.

[1] Where I went to school, the engineering mechanics department felt it
was their duty to weed out the less worthy undergraduates.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[landotter]

On Jul 9, 8:56 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <46919bb7$0$20590$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
> > > In article <vbr293l42l4jb84snd6mj99o8rjkcsf...@4ax.com>, John
> > > Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:35:56 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me>
> > >> wrote: {ABOUT WHAT?!?}
>
> > >>> Brain injury?!? How about a nasty owwie?
>
> > >> You will get little or no argument that helmets can reduce cuts
> > >> and scrape over the area they cover, if you fall and hit your head
> > >> that way.
>
> > > I certainly wouldn't argue against helmets as providing protection
> > > from abrasions, lacerations or bruises.
>
> > Then why do you keep injecting brain injuries into the conversation?
>
> Because that's what helmets are marketed to protect against.

Yup, and everybody from the LBS to the weekend's charity ride, to your
grandmother is now convinced that helmuts are the most essential part
of cycle safety to the detriment of conversation about actual
behavior. Yet, statistics don't prove such worship to be in any way
justifiable. Put 'em on kids that tip over, retards, the senile, and
downhillers--I'd like to continue dressing like an old skool Euro-
roadie without people smugly yelling, "get a helmet, *******."

The last charity ride I went on, I wore a lid, as it was a
requirement--and saw no effort to encourage good riding on open
streets. The "leaders" were club racers from the fancy LBS across the
river, and they encouraged us to run lights--yelled at us when we
slowed down for stop signs, rode 5-6 abreast in traffic--but thank the
lord Jebus they had their foam yarmulkes on.

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <46919bb7$0$20590$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <vbr293l42l4jb84snd6mj99o8rjkcsfb5e@4ax.com>, John
>>> Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:35:56 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>>> wrote: {ABOUT WHAT?!?}
>>
>>>>> Brain injury?!? How about a nasty owwie?
>>
>>>> You will get little or no argument that helmets can reduce cuts
>>>> and scrape over the area they cover, if you fall and hit your head
>>>> that way.
>>
>>> I certainly wouldn't argue against helmets as providing protection
>>> from abrasions, lacerations or bruises.
>>
>> Then why do you keep injecting brain injuries into the conversation?
>
> Because that's what helmets are marketed to protect against.

But that's not what is being discussed here.

[Ben C]

On 2007-07-09, frkrygow@gmail.com <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 3:18 am, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Jul 8, 2:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>> >> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
>> >> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the
>> >> table's surface is reduced.
>>
>> > No, force does NOT remain constant.
>>
>> You guys are pathetic. You're so emotionally invested in this lid biz that
>> you won't even admit that padding reduces the impact of, for example, a
>> hammer on a table top. (Or a golf robot swing thing hitting a bare golf
>> ball and then one with a little fuzzy sweater on it.)
>>
>> Frank IS right about one thing, at least. These helmet threads do not
>> belong in wreck tech. It's not a technical subject. (In fact it's
>> literally subjective.)
>
> Actually, discussion on whether helmets reduce "force" or "impact" ARE
> technical. Those terms have precise meanings, and they can be used
> correctly or wrongly.

What's the technical meaning of "impact"?

[Michael Press]

In article
<1183995427.369752.111590@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups. com>
,
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> Actually, discussion on whether helmets reduce "force" or "impact" ARE
> technical. Those terms have precise meanings, and they can be used
> correctly or wrongly. (IOW, some posts really do deserve red marks.)
> Many of us can learn from those technical discussions.

Actually, impact is not defined in physics.
Impulse is defined to be FORCE times DELTA TIME.
This has the same units as momentum.
Impulse is used in discussions of changes in
momentum occurring in a period of time short
compared to the time resolution of the analysis
or experiment.

--
Michael Press

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Jul 9, 11:38 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2007-07-09, frkry...@gmail.com <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 3:18 am, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
> >> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Jul 8, 2:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>
> >> >> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
> >> >> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the
> >> >> table's surface is reduced.
>
> >> > No, force does NOT remain constant.
>
> >> You guys are pathetic. You're so emotionally invested in this lid biz that
> >> you won't even admit that padding reduces the impact of, for example, a
> >> hammer on a table top. (Or a golf robot swing thing hitting a bare golf
> >> ball and then one with a little fuzzy sweater on it.)
>
> >> Frank IS right about one thing, at least. These helmet threads do not
> >> belong in wreck tech. It's not a technical subject. (In fact it's
> >> literally subjective.)
>
> > Actually, discussion on whether helmets reduce "force" or "impact" ARE
> > technical. Those terms have precise meanings, and they can be used
> > correctly or wrongly.
>
> What's the technical meaning of "impact"?

Dear Ben,

Technically, impact is the impulse of force. Even your fussiest carbon-
based life-forms tend to use the shorter phrase, even when being as
technical as possible:

"The product of average force and the time it is exerted is called the
impulse of force. . . . The main utility of the concept is in the
study of the average impact force during collisions. For collisions,
the mass and change in velocity are often readily measured, but the
force during the collision is not. If the time of collision can be
measured, then the average force of impact can be calculated."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/impulse.html#c3

Browse down that page for an example of a duck (not wearing a helmet)
hitting a jet head on.

The detailed calculator requires the grisly detail of the length of
the duck because the part that goes over the fence last strikes the
600 mph jet slightly later than the beak.

There's even another calculator for glancing rather than head-on
impacts.

(But there's nothing about rotational effect, since the duck is
expected to go splat! in a fashion quite different from a typical bike
crash.)

The assumption is that, since the jet is so massive and the duck's
speed so trivial, we can make a reasonable estimate of impact using
only the jet speed and the duck's mass and length.

Alas, for helmets containing heads, such assumptions don't work well.

While the pavement doesn't dent noticeably and can be ignored, we
can't use the length of the head and helmet, since few bicycle crashes
spread the rider's brains as thinly as impromptu duck paté à la
jetliner. There's also that pesky rotational business, which more and
more medical studies suggest causes many bicycling brain injuries.

For the curious, here's a link to one helmet test, with heights,
weights, and what the head forms actually hit:

http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b90astd.html

http://www.smf.org/standards/pdf/b95rev.pdf

Note that such drop tests ignore the rotational problem--the severed
fake head in a helmet is simply dropped straight down onto various
anvil forms. Since few bicycle crashes involve a lack of forward
motion, this has been criticized as well-meant, but unrealistic.

But in case anyone wants to compare the impulse of force of ducks
hitting jets to severed heads dropping straight down, this calculator
will give free-fall speeds from tiny heights:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Jul 9, 3:16 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <1183950676.751738.96...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.co m>,
>
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You complain about people who say you're not very intelligent. But do
> > you ever stop to think that you're the ONLY one who can't grasp that
> > Usenet shows context in prior posts? Despite having it explained to
> > you literally dozens of times?
>
> When you are using google groups
> you are not necessarily fully adhering to
> Usenet standards and usage.
> gg shows context through a web interface
> and does not always quote context in replies.
>

??

Google groups does quote context in replies, just as it did this
time. At worst, one might have to click "Show quoted text" - or, in
"Sort by reply" mode, simply re-read the previous post or two.

I'm using Google Groups, and I have no trouble at all following
context. And I note, Bill Sornson does not appear to be using Google
Groups. His newsreader is almost certainly more capable, so he should
have no excuse whatever for his (pretended?) inability to remember
context.

He's the only person I've ever encountered who is offended by the
standard, recommended practice of trimming posts. Or who pretends he
is.

- Frank Krygowski

[Ben C]

On 2007-07-09, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 11:38 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> On 2007-07-09, frkry...@gmail.com <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> > Actually, discussion on whether helmets reduce "force" or "impact" ARE
>> > technical. Those terms have precise meanings, and they can be used
>> > correctly or wrongly.
>>
>> What's the technical meaning of "impact"?
>
> Dear Ben,
>
> Technically, impact is the impulse of force. Even your fussiest carbon-
> based life-forms tend to use the shorter phrase, even when being as
> technical as possible:
>
> "The product of average force and the time it is exerted is called the
> impulse of force. . . . The main utility of the concept is in the
> study of the average impact force during collisions. For collisions,
> the mass and change in velocity are often readily measured, but the
> force during the collision is not. If the time of collision can be
> measured, then the average force of impact can be calculated."
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/impulse.html#c3

It seems they're basically using "impact" to mean "force" in that
document.

Protecting a table with a foam pad while striking it with a hammer might
be expected to reduce maximum force by spreading the impact experienced
by the table over a slightly longer period of time.

In the basic calculations the impulse is the same in both cases since we
assume the same amount of momentum is transferred from the hammer to the
table.

The foam pad further might reduce the maximum pressure on the table by
spreading the impact (force) out over a larger area.

If you can keep the pressure low enough you can prevent things breaking.
That's presumably roughly how the cardboard boxes eggs are supplied in
are supposed to work.

If you fall off your bike sideways knocking your head on the sharp edge
of the kerb it's possible the helmet could help prevent a skull fracture
in a similar way.

But head injuries are more complex than egg injuries where all we care
about is that the eggs shouldn't break.

> Browse down that page for an example of a duck (not wearing a helmet)
> hitting a jet head on.
>
> The detailed calculator requires the grisly detail of the length of
> the duck because the part that goes over the fence last strikes the
> 600 mph jet slightly later than the beak.
>
> There's even another calculator for glancing rather than head-on
> impacts.
>
> (But there's nothing about rotational effect, since the duck is
> expected to go splat! in a fashion quite different from a typical bike
> crash.)
>
> The assumption is that, since the jet is so massive and the duck's
> speed so trivial, we can make a reasonable estimate of impact using
> only the jet speed and the duck's mass and length.
>
> Alas, for helmets containing heads, such assumptions don't work well.
>
> While the pavement doesn't dent noticeably and can be ignored, we
> can't use the length of the head and helmet, since few bicycle crashes
> spread the rider's brains as thinly as impromptu duck paté à la
> jetliner.

Yes. It's quite easy to estimate the impulse applied to the head, much
harder to estimate the duration of the impact and how the force varies.
But reasonable to say that the impact might be spread out over space and
time a bit by a layer of styrofoam. How much and how much that helps you
is another matter.

People also sometimes talk about energy absorbed in such collisions,
which is a slightly different metric.

> There's also that pesky rotational business, which more and more
> medical studies suggest causes many bicycling brain injuries.

Yes exactly. Medical studies or not, boxers know that the way to concuss
your opponent is with a blow to the chin causing maximum pesky rotation
of the head.

But I think it's difficult to estimate how much more or less torque you
can expect to receive with or without a helmet. It increases the radius
of your effective head obviously, but it's not that simple.

[Dennis Ferguson]

On 2007-07-09, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 11:38 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> What's the technical meaning of "impact"?
>
> Technically, impact is the impulse of force. Even your fussiest carbon-
> based life-forms tend to use the shorter phrase, even when being as
> technical as possible:

Do you have a reference for that definition? Even the web page you
referenced has a quote inconsistent with that here

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/impulse.html#c4

where it says

Jack Elrod in his Mark Trail comic strip (2/27/2000) says "If an
aircraft strikes a big bird at a speed of 500 MPH, the impact will
be about 25 tons." He is pretty well on target, considering the above
model for a headon collision with a medium sized bird.

"25 tons" is in units of force, not momentum.

I always thought "impact" was a non-quantitative, purely descriptive
term to describe the event. When someone says the "impact" is some quantity
(or "smaller" or "larger") they are leaving it to the reader to figure
out which quantifiable attribute of the event (e.g. impact force, or
impact velocity, or impact energy) they are talking about.

I could be wrong, though.

Dennis Ferguson

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Jul 9, 4:09 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Jul 9, 11:38 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
> > What's the technical meaning of "impact"?
>
> Dear Ben,
>
> Technically, impact is the impulse of force.

Sorry, not so.

As someone else posted, "impulse" has a definite technical meaning,
and is a measurable (or calculable) quantity with units of pounds
times seconds.

But impact is a soft "general" term, not numerically defined and with
no units of measurement. An impact refers, in a general sense, to an
event involving the application of a force for a small amount of
time. This normally happens through a collision. But "impact" does
not equal "impulse."


> "The product of average force and the time it is exerted is called the
> impulse of force. . . . The main utility of the concept is in the
> study of the average impact force during collisions. For collisions,
> the mass and change in velocity are often readily measured, but the
> force during the collision is not. If the time of collision can be
> measured, then the average force of impact can be calculated."

Note that in that paragraph, they're using impact as an adjective (not
a noun) to specify a certain force - that arising between colliding
objects.

> For the curious, here's a link to one helmet test, with heights,
> weights, and what the head forms actually hit:
>
> http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b90astd.html
>
> http://www.smf.org/standards/pdf/b95rev.pdf

And of course, Snell does its part to perpetuate the idea that cycling
is dangerous. Their point number one: "1. Bicycling imposes risks of
death or permanent impairment due to head injury."

Yes, and so do thousands of other activities. What is the _level_ of
bicycling's risk? Is it worse than, say, walking down stairs?

Snell: "Um - we'll get back to you on that after we design and test-
market our stair helmets."

>
> Note that such drop tests ignore the rotational problem--the severed
> fake head in a helmet is simply dropped straight down onto various
> anvil forms. Since few bicycle crashes involve a lack of forward
> motion, this has been criticized as well-meant, but unrealistic.

I still recall the first article I read on the then brand-new Snell
bike helmet standard. That measly standard (an attempt to protect
against a stationary topple) was immediately criticized as uselessly
small. The response: "It's all we can do. Anything that would
protect against stronger impacts would be unwearable."

And therefore, un-sellable, which is the REAL priority.

- Frank Krygowski

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:31:32 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 2007-07-09, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 11:38 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>>> What's the technical meaning of "impact"?
>>
>> Technically, impact is the impulse of force. Even your fussiest carbon-
>> based life-forms tend to use the shorter phrase, even when being as
>> technical as possible:
>
>Do you have a reference for that definition? Even the web page you
>referenced has a quote inconsistent with that here
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/impulse.html#c4

[snip]

Dear Dennis,

Here's what I quoted:

"The product of average force and the time it is exerted is called the
impulse of force. . . . The main utility of the concept is in the
study of the average impact force during collisions. For collisions,
the mass and change in velocity are often readily measured, but the
force during the collision is not. If the time of collision can be
measured, then the average force of impact can be calculated."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/impulse.html#c3

Feel free to argue with that web site.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Dennis Ferguson]

On 2007-07-09, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:31:32 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
><dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2007-07-09, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Jul 9, 11:38 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>>>> What's the technical meaning of "impact"?
>>>
>>> Technically, impact is the impulse of force. Even your fussiest carbon-
>>> based life-forms tend to use the shorter phrase, even when being as
>>> technical as possible:
>>
>>Do you have a reference for that definition? Even the web page you
>>referenced has a quote inconsistent with that here
>>
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/impulse.html#c4
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Dennis,
>
> Here's what I quoted:
>
> "The product of average force and the time it is exerted is called the
> impulse of force. . . . The main utility of the concept is in the
> study of the average impact force during collisions. For collisions,
> the mass and change in velocity are often readily measured, but the
> force during the collision is not. If the time of collision can be
> measured, then the average force of impact can be calculated."
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/impulse.html#c3
>
> Feel free to argue with that web site.

Ah, okay. I just didn't see "impact" being defined as "impulse of
force", or anything else, in there. I still don't, actually, but that's
okay.

Dennis Ferguson

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:23:38 -0000, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>On Jul 9, 4:09 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 11:38 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>>
>> > What's the technical meaning of "impact"?
>>
>> Dear Ben,
>>
>> Technically, impact is the impulse of force.
>
>Sorry, not so.
>
>As someone else posted, "impulse" has a definite technical meaning,
>and is a measurable (or calculable) quantity with units of pounds
>times seconds.
>
>But impact is a soft "general" term, not numerically defined and with
>no units of measurement. An impact refers, in a general sense, to an
>event involving the application of a force for a small amount of
>time. This normally happens through a collision. But "impact" does
>not equal "impulse."

[snip]

Dear Frank,

Sorry, but sites like hyperphysics end up saying:

"The main utility of the concept [impulse of force] is in the study of
the average impact force during collisions."

Feel free to draw distinctions without numbers or explanations in the
original question about helmets hitting the ground.

But that's what's so unimpressive about this portion of the thread. A
number of posters are stating that the wrong terms are being used, but
none have bothered to address the example.

I note that the hyperphysics people put up examples with numbers and
calculations and even calculators

Put together an example with some numbers to show what you mean, and
perhaps hyperphysics (and other sites and RBT posters like me) will
appreciate that you have a point about the helmet hitting the ground,
rather than a quibble about the language.

Frankly, I've been surprised that posters who usually use numbers,
equations, and examples suddenly stopped using them in this particular
portion of the thread.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Jul 10, 12:43 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:23:38 -0000, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Jul 9, 4:09 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On Jul 9, 11:38 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
> >> > What's the technical meaning of "impact"?
>
> >> Dear Ben,
>
> >> Technically, impact is the impulse of force.
>
> >Sorry, not so.
>
> >As someone else posted, "impulse" has a definite technical meaning,
> >and is a measurable (or calculable) quantity with units of pounds
> >times seconds.
>
> >But impact is a soft "general" term, not numerically defined and with
> >no units of measurement. An impact refers, in a general sense, to an
> >event involving the application of a force for a small amount of
> >time. This normally happens through a collision. But "impact" does
> >not equal "impulse."
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Frank,
>
> Sorry, but sites like hyperphysics end up saying:
>
> "The main utility of the concept [impulse of force] is in the study of
> the average impact force during collisions."


Again, "impact" is being used as a specifying adjective. To rephrase,
their sentence could read: ""The main utility of the concept [impulse
of force] is in the study of
the average force during collisions." It would lose no meaning
whatsoever.

"Impact" is different from "impulse." The second term is
quantifiable. The first term is merely descriptive.

Admittedly, this is a fairly minor point. In a similar manner, many
lay people use the word "strain" when they really mean "stress," and
I'm sure similar discrepancies arise in other fields. But when folks
trained in the discipline see the misuse, they interpret it as a
warning that the user probably isn't very expert in the topic.

- Frank Krygowski

[r15757@aol.com]

On Jul 9, 11:03 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:


> ...But when folks
> trained in the discipline see the misuse, they interpret it as a
> warning that the user probably isn't very expert in the topic.

More likely, they wave the specialized jargon around in front of them
like some kind of disinfectant spray to ward off any further
intrusions from 'non-experts.'

Robert

[Bill Sornson]

r15757@aol.com wrote:
> On Jul 9, 11:03 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> ...But when folks
>> trained in the discipline see the misuse, they interpret it as a
>> warning that the user probably isn't very expert in the topic.
>
> More likely, they wave the specialized jargon around in front of them
> like some kind of disinfectant spray to ward off any further
> intrusions from 'non-experts.'

That wasn't terribly forceful, but it sure had impact.

Heh.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Jul 10, 2:36 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jul 9, 11:03 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > ...But when folks
> > trained in the discipline see the misuse, they interpret it as a
> > warning that the user probably isn't very expert in the topic.
>
> More likely, they wave the specialized jargon around in front of them
> like some kind of disinfectant spray to ward off any further
> intrusions from 'non-experts.'

I'll grant you this: When a few people have spent years studying
things like impulse and momentum or stress and strain, and they're in
a technical discussion involving such concepts, it can be very
annoying to have a cocksure no-nothing wander in and try to redefine
fundamental terms. This is why 13-year-olds aren't usually allowed in
research labs.

Usenet runs by different rules, of course, and most technically
trained people here are patient and kind to non-techies. But there
are reasonable limits to that patience.

- Frank Krygowski

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:02:28 -0000, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>On Jul 10, 2:36 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 11:03 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > ...But when folks
>> > trained in the discipline see the misuse, they interpret it as a
>> > warning that the user probably isn't very expert in the topic.
>>
>> More likely, they wave the specialized jargon around in front of them
>> like some kind of disinfectant spray to ward off any further
>> intrusions from 'non-experts.'
>
>I'll grant you this: When a few people have spent years studying
>things like impulse and momentum or stress and strain, and they're in
>a technical discussion involving such concepts, it can be very
>annoying to have a cocksure no-nothing wander in and try to redefine
>fundamental terms. This is why 13-year-olds aren't usually allowed in
>research labs.
>
>Usenet runs by different rules, of course, and most technically
>trained people here are patient and kind to non-techies. But there
>are reasonable limits to that patience.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Dear Frank,

When a 13-year-old points out that the same hammer blow produces
different effects on a table top, depending on whether it's been
cushioned with a pad, the 13-year-old looks smarter than people
quibbling about his terms and calling him a 13-year-old.

In fact, the 13-year-old is just pointing out this sort of thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_force

I should add that I foolishly forgot that Joe Riel addressed the point
in his usual succinct fashion, clarifying what the 13-year-old was
trying to say about the hammer and the pad:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b0d5b0fe160759dc

Whether you want to call it peak force, average force, force of
impulse, or anything else, the original point was that a helmet or a
pad does indeed cushion the impact of a crash or a hammer.

Some posters are so caught up in the discussion that they will seize
on the admittedly confused original explanation of the hammer and the
pad instead of addressing the obvious practical point.

I suspect that this evasion is due to their reluctance to grant any
value to helmets, but it makes them look either foolish, frightened,
or unwilling to argue in good faith.

Here's how I'd address the hammer and pad argument instead of
quibbling about semantics.

Yes, helmets can cushion impacts in crashes, just as pads cushion
hammer blows. The peak force is reduced by being spread out over a
longer time.

But . . .

Study after study shows that helmets fail to do what we wish they'd
do. When mandatory bicycle helmet laws cause a huge, abrupt increase
in helmet use, there is no apparent effect on the rate of serious head
injuries and deaths. The hoped-for effect simply doesn't show up.

(Smaller studies, usually comparing badly-chosen groups, _may_ show a
helmet effect, but smaller studies are only useful as far as they
predict what larger studies will show. In crude terms, rolling a
double-six once is not going to be a useful guide to playing
backgammon. To show just how badly designed and interpreted small
studies can be, the most often cited study claiming that helmets
dramatically reduced head injuries also inadvertently showed that
helmets dramatically reduced leg injuries.)

Various explanations have been offered for the helmet failure.

Riders may be risk compensating, meaning that they automatically
increase their risky behavior to maintain the same level of acceptable
risk. The taxi driver study often mentioned in these threads showed
that taxi drivers randomly assigned cars with and without ABS braking
clearly drove faster and closer to other cars when they thought that
they were protected by the ABS.

While insisting that they certainly do no such thing, people will
answer questions that show that they certainly do behave differently
when they wear helmets. Posters here on RBT often expose this behavior
by pointing out that other posters who deny risk-compensation
nevertheless admit that they would ride more slowly and carefully (or
even walk) if they lost their helmet halfway through a ride.

(The hallmark of risk compensation is that almost everyone believes
that _they_ doesn't do it, in spite of clear evidence that they do,
just as almost everyone believes that _they_ have no need of
double-blind procedures. It's those other guys who are human and
fallible, not us.)

Another explanation for helmet failure is that its cushion effect may
be offset by a corresponding increase in actual impacts and rotational
effects. A helmeted head is much larger, so it hits things that the
unhelmeted head misses. When it hits those things, the helmeted head
is rotated with a longer lever arm. More impacts and more powerful
rotations would be a deadly combination, since more and more evidence
shows that rotational injuries, not direct blows, are likely to be the
culprits in typical bicycle crashes.

Yet another explanation for helmet failure is that the cushion effect
may be insignificant. Most bicyclist deaths in the U.S. involve
massive injuries caused by collisions with cars at high speeds, not
the comparatively gentle slip-and-fall impacts suggested by typical
helmet testing standards.

(Consider how rare deaths and serious brain injuries were in
pre-helmet bicycle racing, where simple falling-down crashes were
almost routine. We still speak of "road rash" almost casually. "Car
rash" is quite a different matter.)

In other words, a heavy coat and a hat can cushion you against hail,
just as a helmet can cushion you against minor head injuries. But the
coat and hat offer no more practical protection against bullets and
shrapnel than helmets seem to offer against serious brain injuries and
deaths.


Most anecdotal arguments that a helmet did protect a rider from severe
head injury turn out to be logically flawed, since there's no way to
reproduce the accident without the helmet and it's hard not to draw
shaky conclusions from cracked styrofoam.

But we _do_ have large-scale comparisons. Those dull statistics show
that abruptly raising helmet use from around 50% to nearly 100% with a
mandatory helmet law has no discernable effect on serious injuries.
Here's a typical graph of helmet use rising abruptly from about 60% to
nearly 100% without any significant effect on head injuries:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/b383cda8149ed78680256aaa00603759/2cc4aaef43ea308880256fec007121fb/Body/91.4A64!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif
or http://tinyurl.com/23zdsq

You can see the details and similar graphs here:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets?OpenDocument

We all wish that there was something that we could buy in a store that
would protect us on our bicycles against serious brain injury and
death, but so far there's no practical evidence that helmets offer
that. They may indeed protect against minor injuries.

Luckily, as Frank and others keep reminding us, bicycling is
extraordinarily safe.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Jul 10, 2:25 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote...

A post I wouldn't dare try to improve. Nice work.

- Frank Krygowski

[Michael Press]

In article
<2ej793ptaedbnoq2vcr89m9l5nhn6nak3n@4ax.com>,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

> When a 13-year-old points out that the same hammer blow produces
> different effects on a table top, depending on whether it's been
> cushioned with a pad, the 13-year-old looks smarter than people
> quibbling about his terms and calling him a 13-year-old.

A hammer blow on a fine wood table top
protected with a bicycle helmet
will suffer irreparable damage.

--
Michael Press

[r15757@aol.com]

On Jul 10, 12:25 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:02:28 -0000, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Jul 10, 2:36 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Jul 9, 11:03 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > ...But when folks
> >> > trained in the discipline see the misuse, they interpret it as a
> >> > warning that the user probably isn't very expert in the topic.
>
> >> More likely, they wave the specialized jargon around in front of them
> >> like some kind of disinfectant spray to ward off any further
> >> intrusions from 'non-experts.'
>
> >I'll grant you this: When a few people have spent years studying
> >things like impulse and momentum or stress and strain, and they're in
> >a technical discussion involving such concepts, it can be very
> >annoying to have a cocksure no-nothing wander in and try to redefine
> >fundamental terms. This is why 13-year-olds aren't usually allowed in
> >research labs.
>
> >Usenet runs by different rules, of course, and most technically
> >trained people here are patient and kind to non-techies. But there
> >are reasonable limits to that patience.
>
> >- Frank Krygowski
>
> Dear Frank,
>
> When a 13-year-old points out that the same hammer blow produces
> different effects on a table top, depending on whether it's been
> cushioned with a pad, the 13-year-old looks smarter than people
> quibbling about his terms and calling him a 13-year-old.
>
> In fact, the 13-year-old is just pointing out this sort of thing:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_force
>
> I should add that I foolishly forgot that Joe Riel addressed the point
> in his usual succinct fashion, clarifying what the 13-year-old was
> trying to say about the hammer and the pad:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b0d5b0fe160759dc
>
> Whether you want to call it peak force, average force, force of
> impulse, or anything else, the original point was that a helmet or a
> pad does indeed cushion the impact of a crash or a hammer.
>
> Some posters are so caught up in the discussion that they will seize
> on the admittedly confused original explanation of the hammer and the
> pad instead of addressing the obvious practical point.
>
> I suspect that this evasion is due to their reluctance to grant any
> value to helmets, but it makes them look either foolish, frightened,
> or unwilling to argue in good faith.
>
> Here's how I'd address the hammer and pad argument instead of
> quibbling about semantics.
>
> Yes, helmets can cushion impacts in crashes, just as pads cushion
> hammer blows. The peak force is reduced by being spread out over a
> longer time.
>
> But . . .
>
> Study after study shows that helmets fail to do what we wish they'd
> do. When mandatory bicycle helmet laws cause a huge, abrupt increase
> in helmet use, there is no apparent effect on the rate of serious head
> injuries and deaths. The hoped-for effect simply doesn't show up.
>
> (Smaller studies, usually comparing badly-chosen groups, _may_ show a
> helmet effect, but smaller studies are only useful as far as they
> predict what larger studies will show. In crude terms, rolling a
> double-six once is not going to be a useful guide to playing
> backgammon. To show just how badly designed and interpreted small
> studies can be, the most often cited study claiming that helmets
> dramatically reduced head injuries also inadvertently showed that
> helmets dramatically reduced leg injuries.)
>
> Various explanations have been offered for the helmet failure.
>
> Riders may be risk compensating, meaning that they automatically
> increase their risky behavior to maintain the same level of acceptable
> risk. The taxi driver study often mentioned in these threads showed
> that taxi drivers randomly assigned cars with and without ABS braking
> clearly drove faster and closer to other cars when they thought that
> they were protected by the ABS.
>
> While insisting that they certainly do no such thing, people will
> answer questions that show that they certainly do behave differently
> when they wear helmets. Posters here on RBT often expose this behavior
> by pointing out that other posters who deny risk-compensation
> nevertheless admit that they would ride more slowly and carefully (or
> even walk) if they lost their helmet halfway through a ride.
>
> (The hallmark of risk compensation is that almost everyone believes
> that _they_ doesn't do it, in spite of clear evidence that they do,
> just as almost everyone believes that _they_ have no need of
> double-blind procedures. It's those other guys who are human and
> fallible, not us.)
>
> Another explanation for helmet failure is that its cushion effect may
> be offset by a corresponding increase in actual impacts and rotational
> effects. A helmeted head is much larger, so it hits things that the
> unhelmeted head misses. When it hits those things, the helmeted head
> is rotated with a longer lever arm. More impacts and more powerful
> rotations would be a deadly combination, since more and more evidence
> shows that rotational injuries, not direct blows, are likely to be the
> culprits in typical bicycle crashes.
>
> Yet another explanation for helmet failure is that the cushion effect
> may be insignificant. Most bicyclist deaths in the U.S. involve
> massive injuries caused by collisions with cars at high speeds, not
> the comparatively gentle slip-and-fall impacts suggested by typical
> helmet testing standards.
>
> (Consider how rare deaths and serious brain injuries were in
> pre-helmet bicycle racing, where simple falling-down crashes were
> almost routine. We still speak of "road rash" almost casually. "Car
> rash" is quite a different matter.)
>
> In other words, a heavy coat and a hat can cushion you against hail,
> just as a helmet can cushion you against minor head injuries. But the
> coat and hat offer no more practical protection against bullets and
> shrapnel than helmets seem to offer against serious brain injuries and
> deaths.
>
> Most anecdotal arguments that a helmet did protect a rider from severe
> head injury turn out to be logically flawed, since there's no way to
> reproduce the accident without the helmet and it's hard not to draw
> shaky conclusions from cracked styrofoam.
>
> But we _do_ have large-scale comparisons. Those dull statistics show
> that abruptly raising helmet use from around 50% to nearly 100% with a
> mandatory helmet law has no discernable effect on serious injuries.
> Here's a typical graph of helmet use rising abruptly from about 60% to
> nearly 100% without any significant effect on head injuries:
>
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/b383cda8149ed78680256a...
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/23zdsq
>
> You can see the details and similar graphs here:
>
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-hel...
>
> We all wish that there was something that we could buy in a store that
> would protect us on our bicycles against serious brain injury and
> death, but so far there's no practical evidence that helmets offer
> that. They may indeed protect against minor injuries.
>
> Luckily, as Frank and others keep reminding us, bicycling is
> extraordinarily safe.

Great post Carl. But bicycling is only 'extraordinarily safe' for
those who understand the danger, and folks who claim it is
'extraordinarily safe' generally don't.

Robert

[Ted Bennett]

Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:

> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > When a 13-year-old points out that the same hammer blow produces
> > different effects on a table top, depending on whether it's been
> > cushioned with a pad, the 13-year-old looks smarter than people
> > quibbling about his terms and calling him a 13-year-old.
>
> A hammer blow on a fine wood table top
> protected with a bicycle helmet
> will suffer irreparable damage.

How does one damage a blow?

--
Ted Bennett

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:53:51 +0000, Michael Press wrote:

>
> A hammer blow on a fine wood table top
> protected with a bicycle helmet
> will suffer irreparable damage.
>

How does one irreparably damage a hammer blow?

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

[Bill Sornson]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <2ej793ptaedbnoq2vcr89m9l5nhn6nak3n@4ax.com>,
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> When a 13-year-old points out that the same hammer blow produces
>> different effects on a table top, depending on whether it's been
>> cushioned with a pad, the 13-year-old looks smarter than people
>> quibbling about his terms and calling him a 13-year-old.

> A hammer blow on a fine wood table top
> protected with a bicycle helmet
> will suffer irreparable damage.

/Non-sequitur/ much?

Bill "13...times 4 Friday" S.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <2ej793ptaedbnoq2vcr89m9l5nhn6nak3n@4ax.com>,
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> When a 13-year-old points out that the same hammer blow produces
>> different effects on a table top, depending on whether it's been
>> cushioned with a pad, the 13-year-old looks smarter than people
>> quibbling about his terms and calling him a 13-year-old.
>
> A hammer blow on a fine wood table top
> protected with a bicycle helmet
> will suffer irreparable damage.

How can a hammer blow suffer irreparable damage?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Bill Sornson]

Ted Bennett wrote:
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> When a 13-year-old points out that the same hammer blow produces
>>> different effects on a table top, depending on whether it's been
>>> cushioned with a pad, the 13-year-old looks smarter than people
>>> quibbling about his terms and calling him a 13-year-old.
>>
>> A hammer blow on a fine wood table top
>> protected with a bicycle helmet
>> will suffer irreparable damage.
>
> How does one damage a blow?

LOL Nice catch.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:24:31 GMT, Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:53:51 +0000, Michael Press wrote:
>
>>
>> A hammer blow on a fine wood table top
>> protected with a bicycle helmet
>> will suffer irreparable damage.
>>
>
>How does one irreparably damage a hammer blow?

Dear Luigi & Ted,

A) Thanks for reminding me why I was loved by so many freshman
composition students--sometimes I forget the joy that my scribbled
comments must have brought to their lives.

B) Any hammer blow is always irreparably damaged by whatever it
strikes. All the force vanishes in an instant, leaving you to find a
new hammer blow.

C) Luckily, dead hammer blows can be collected and recycled:

http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=41800

Presumably the non-marring head is suitable for use on fine wooden
tables.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Bill Sornson]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>> In article
>> <2ej793ptaedbnoq2vcr89m9l5nhn6nak3n@4ax.com>,
>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> When a 13-year-old points out that the same hammer blow produces
>>> different effects on a table top, depending on whether it's been
>>> cushioned with a pad, the 13-year-old looks smarter than people
>>> quibbling about his terms and calling him a 13-year-old.
>>
>> A hammer blow on a fine wood table top
>> protected with a bicycle helmet
>> will suffer irreparable damage.
>
> How can a hammer blow suffer irreparable damage?

Helmets are /really/ tough, you see.

[Bill Sornson]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

> Many in the US disdain science and logic, and prefer to go on "gut"
> reaction and/or faith based answers

Al Gore got an Oscar for doing exactly that.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:41:39 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> Many in the US disdain science and logic, and prefer to go on "gut"
>> reaction and/or faith based answers
>
>Al Gore got an Oscar for doing exactly that.

Where do you get your news Sorni? Where do you get your news?



--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:47:54 -0700, r15757@aol.com wrote:


>Great post Carl. But bicycling is only 'extraordinarily safe' for
>those who understand the danger, and folks who claim it is
>'extraordinarily safe' generally don't.
>
>Robert

Dear Robert,

Whatever you're trying to say, it's hardly specific. Bicycling is
extraordinarily safe for over 99.9% of riders, year in, year out, so
just about everyone must understand the danger.

Below is something specific about the danger of bicycling--basically,
cars kill bicyclists.

Curiously, it says nothing about drunks, who may be the largest
identifiable group of dead bicyclists.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

***

Stats specific to Austin [Texas]

A good collection of statistics regarding car-bike collisions in
Austin is available on the bicycle section of the City's Safe
Communities page. Here are some excerpts from their report

(percentages have been rounded):

An average of 2.4 cyclists dies each year in Austin. (From 1980-96,
the fewest in any one year was 0, and the most was 7.)

Of the 41 cyclists killed between 1980-1996, 39 were struck by motor
vehicles. (>95%)

80% of the victims were age 39 or under.

From 1990-96, 12 cyclists were killed, but another 1,222 were injured.

Of those injured, around 15% suffered incapacitating injuries (i.e.,
needed help leaving the scene of the crash).

Surprisingly, from 1994-96, nearly 78% of cyclist injuries occurred
during daylight hours, which a huge chunk of the total (42%) occurring
during just the four-hour period of 4-8pm.

However, although nighttime collisions are more rare, they're also
more dangerous. While only 22% of all injuries occurred at dusk or at
night, 46% of fatal and incapacitating injuries did.

From 1994-96, 57% of bicycle injuries either occurred at intersections
or were intersection-related. Another 16% occurred at commercial or
residential driveways. Since driveways are really a kind of
intersection, ~73% occurred at some kind of intersection.

Bicyclists were judged to be in violation of the law in 62% of crashes
from 1994-96.

Of the 180 cases in which the police noted motorist-related crash
factors, citations were issued to motorists only 35% of the time.
(1994-96) For example, in the 39 cases in 1998 where drivers caused or
contributed to bike collisions by failing to yield the right of way,
citations were issued in only 14 cases.

While most collisions occurred on city streets, those occurring on the
frontage road of I-35 or on county roads were about twice as likely to
be fatal or incapacitating (probably due to the increased speed of
automobiles on these roads).

http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> Many in the US disdain science and logic, and prefer to go on "gut"
>>> reaction and/or faith based answers
>> Al Gore got an Oscar for doing exactly that.
>
> Where do you get your news Sorni? Where do you get your news?

Amplitude modulation?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Bill Sornson]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many in the US disdain science and logic, and prefer to go on "gut"
>>>> reaction and/or faith based answers
>>> Al Gore got an Oscar for doing exactly that.
>>
>> Where do you get your news Sorni? Where do you get your news?
>
> Amplitude modulation?

Sure hear a lot of PhD climatologists and meteorologists who trash A
Convenient Lie there! You should check it out!

Bill "why does that nutty man keep talking to me, Mommy?" S.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:19:21 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Many in the US disdain science and logic, and prefer to go on "gut"
>>>>> reaction and/or faith based answers
>>>> Al Gore got an Oscar for doing exactly that.
>>>
>>> Where do you get your news Sorni? Where do you get your news?
>>
>> Amplitude modulation?
>
>Sure hear a lot of PhD climatologists and meteorologists who trash A
>Convenient Lie there! You should check it out!

Where? Where do you get your news?

And how are these scientists? Are they on energy company payrolls?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:19:21 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Many in the US disdain science and logic, and prefer to go on "gut"
>>>>> reaction and/or faith based answers
>>>> Al Gore got an Oscar for doing exactly that.
>>>
>>> Where do you get your news Sorni? Where do you get your news?
>>
>> Amplitude modulation?
>
>Sure hear a lot of PhD climatologists and meteorologists who trash A
>Convenient Lie there! You should check it out!

Are you saying you get your news from AM radio? I haven't listened to
that much recently -- are their even reporters on AM radio stations
(as opposed to political commentators)? What shows do you listen to?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[DI]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
news:440b939p3r397773etj6lkl4abugkiioks@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:19:21 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
>>Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Many in the US disdain science and logic, and prefer to go on "gut"
>>>>>> reaction and/or faith based answers
>>>>> Al Gore got an Oscar for doing exactly that.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you get your news Sorni? Where do you get your news?
>>>
>>> Amplitude modulation?
>>
>>Sure hear a lot of PhD climatologists and meteorologists who trash A
>>Convenient Lie there! You should check it out!
>
> Where? Where do you get your news?
>
> And how are these scientists? Are they on energy company payrolls?
> --
> JT

Come on Bill, admit you get your news by smoke signals and drum beats. I've
never seen anyone so obsessed with how others get information and news like
JT is. Hell there's so many sources you probably cannot list them all, but
it's expected from someone who only knows what they get from their single
source propaganda merchants.

[Bill Sornson]

DI wrote:
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
> news:440b939p3r397773etj6lkl4abugkiioks@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:19:21 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many in the US disdain science and logic, and prefer to go on
>>>>>>> "gut" reaction and/or faith based answers
>>>>>> Al Gore got an Oscar for doing exactly that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you get your news Sorni? Where do you get your news?
>>>>
>>>> Amplitude modulation?
>>>
>>> Sure hear a lot of PhD climatologists and meteorologists who trash A
>>> Convenient Lie there! You should check it out!
>>
>> Where? Where do you get your news?
>>
>> And how are these scientists? Are they on energy company payrolls?
>> --
>> JT
>
> Come on Bill, admit you get your news by smoke signals and drum
> beats. I've never seen anyone so obsessed with how others get
> information and news like JT is. Hell there's so many sources you
> probably cannot list them all, but it's expected from someone who
> only knows what they get from their single source propaganda
> merchants.

Well, DI, since Robert "Gulfstream" Kennedy has proclaimed that the (many)
scientists who dispute man-caused GW are traitors and should be treated as
such, I best not reveal their identities! (Too bad they're some of the
leading experts in their fields, huh?)

As for poor ol' Flogger, I only see his words when others quote him; and
having been chastised for daring to comment on some things in that format,
I'll refrain from now on. (It is cute-slash-pathetic how he continues to
address things to me, knowing I plonked his lying, dishonest self many
months ago.)

Bill "as Usenet turns" S.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:58:04 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:

>
>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
>news:440b939p3r397773etj6lkl4abugkiioks@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:19:21 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many in the US disdain science and logic, and prefer to go on "gut"
>>>>>>> reaction and/or faith based answers
>>>>>> Al Gore got an Oscar for doing exactly that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you get your news Sorni? Where do you get your news?
>>>>
>>>> Amplitude modulation?
>>>
>>>Sure hear a lot of PhD climatologists and meteorologists who trash A
>>>Convenient Lie there! You should check it out!
>>
>> Where? Where do you get your news?
>>
>> And how are these scientists? Are they on energy company payrolls?
>> --
>> JT
>
>Come on Bill, admit you get your news by smoke signals and drum beats. I've
>never seen anyone so obsessed with how others get information and news like
>JT is. Hell there's so many sources you probably cannot list them all, but
>it's expected from someone who only knows what they get from their single
>source propaganda merchants.

"Single source propaganda merchants"?

www.jt10000.com/links/

Where do you get your news DI?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:53:40 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>As for poor ol' Flogger, I only see his words when others quote him; and
>having been chastised for daring to comment on some things in that format,
>I'll refrain from now on. (It is cute-slash-pathetic how he continues to
>address things to me, knowing I plonked his lying, dishonest self many
>months ago.)

In the last four or five days you have posted replies that quote
things I said at least once each day.

You are avoiding very simple questions, such as where you get your
news. Are you embarrassed to say that you get all your news from a
single source -- perhaps some criminal/commentator such as Rush
Limbaugh?

If you want to be a coward, you're doing a good job at demonstrating
it in public. If I was trying to hide from someone's line of inquiry
I'd do a better job of pretending I'm not aware of it.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[DI]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
news:ohsb93dr0atk3klc795sqtnu7molrbknve@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:58:04 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
>>
>>Come on Bill, admit you get your news by smoke signals and drum beats.
>>I've
>>never seen anyone so obsessed with how others get information and news
>>like
>>JT is. Hell there's so many sources you probably cannot list them all,
>>but
>>it's expected from someone who only knows what they get from their single
>>source propaganda merchants.
>
> "Single source propaganda merchants"?
>
> www.jt10000.com/links/
>
> Where do you get your news DI?
>
> --
> JT

Wal-Mart

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:8psb9319bht5vsq6o4dujut54mqmd3kvo4@4ax.com,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:53:40 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
>> As for poor ol' Flogger, I only see his words when others quote him;
>> and having been chastised for daring to comment on some things in
>> that format, I'll refrain from now on. (It is cute-slash-pathetic
>> how he continues to address things to me, knowing I plonked his
>> lying, dishonest self many months ago.)
>
> In the last four or five days you have posted replies that quote
> things I said at least once each day.
>
> You are avoiding very simple questions, such as where you get your
> news. Are you embarrassed to say that you get all your news from a
> single source -- perhaps some criminal/commentator such as Rush
> Limbaugh?
>
> If you want to be a coward, you're doing a good job at demonstrating
> it in public. If I was trying to hide from someone's line of inquiry
> I'd do a better job of pretending I'm not aware of it.

You have moved beyond tedious into obnoxious.
I am surprised anyone reads you any more.
--
Sandy

Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
Je veux seulement ne pas être là
quand elle arrivera.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:52:12 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:

>Dans le message de news:8psb9319bht5vsq6o4dujut54mqmd3kvo4@4ax.com,
>John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> a réfléchi, et puis a

>> If you want to be a coward, you're doing a good job at demonstrating
>> it in public. If I was trying to hide from someone's line of inquiry
>> I'd do a better job of pretending I'm not aware of it.
>
>You have moved beyond tedious into obnoxious.
>I am surprised anyone reads you any more.

LOL
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Bill Sornson]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:8psb9319bht5vsq6o4dujut54mqmd3kvo4@4ax.com,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> a réfléchi, et puis
> a déclaré :
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:53:40 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As for poor ol' Flogger, I only see his words when others quote him;
>>> and having been chastised for daring to comment on some things in
>>> that format, I'll refrain from now on. (It is cute-slash-pathetic
>>> how he continues to address things to me, knowing I plonked his
>>> lying, dishonest self many months ago.)
>>
>> In the last four or five days you have posted replies that quote
>> things I said at least once each day.
>>
>> You are avoiding very simple questions, such as where you get your
>> news. Are you embarrassed to say that you get all your news from a
>> single source -- perhaps some criminal/commentator such as Rush
>> Limbaugh?
>>
>> If you want to be a coward, you're doing a good job at demonstrating
>> it in public. If I was trying to hide from someone's line of inquiry
>> I'd do a better job of pretending I'm not aware of it.
>
> You have moved beyond tedious into obnoxious.
> I am surprised anyone reads you any more.

Not only is he clueless, his memory's as short as his...attention span! LOL
(Hint for Flogger: I /was/ occasionally answering you second-hand, but
others said if I plonked you then that's not Kosher. So I stopped. Why
don't you do the same?!?)

[Bill Sornson]

DI wrote:
> "HWNMNBM" wrote in message
> news:ohsb93dr0atk3klc795sqtnu7molrbknve@4ax.com...

>> Where do you get your news DI?

> Wal-Mart

LOL Hillary will put an end to that! (Although Mrs. Obama will suffer,
since she's on the board of a Satan's Supplier.)

Speaking of Satan, Hill and Bill made money off Exxon-Mobil and Big Pharma
stocks -- and lately even more by shorting them (albeit in a
not-so-bloody-blind trust) since they're so publicly demonizing the
companies. No fraud and hypocrisy there!

Interesting times.

BS (sadly not)

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:46:00 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>Sandy wrote:
>> Dans le message de news:8psb9319bht5vsq6o4dujut54mqmd3kvo4@4ax.com,
>> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> a réfléchi, et puis
[sorni snips]
>>> In the last four or five days you have posted replies that quote
>>> things I said at least once each day.
>>>
[jft snips]
>>>
>>> If you want to be a coward, you're doing a good job at demonstrating
>>> it in public. If I was trying to hide from someone's line of inquiry
>>> I'd do a better job of pretending I'm not aware of it.
>>
>> You have moved beyond tedious into obnoxious.
>> I am surprised anyone reads you any more.
>
>Not only is he clueless, his memory's as short as his...attention span! LOL
>(Hint for Flogger: I /was/ occasionally answering you second-hand, but
>others said if I plonked you then that's not Kosher. So I stopped. Why
>don't you do the same?!?)

Ahh, the daily dose of Sorni claiming to not see what I wrote, while
reposting it to the world.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> DI wrote:
>> "HWNMNBM" wrote in message
>> news:ohsb93dr0atk3klc795sqtnu7molrbknve@4ax.com...
>
>>> Where do you get your news DI?
>
>> Wal-Mart
>
> LOL Hillary will put an end to that! (Although Mrs. Obama will suffer,
> since she's on the board of a Satan's Supplier.)
>
> Speaking of Satan, Hill and Bill made money off Exxon-Mobil and Big Pharma
> stocks -- and lately even more by shorting them (albeit in a
> not-so-bloody-blind trust) since they're so publicly demonizing the
> companies. No fraud and hypocrisy there!
>
> Interesting times.

Is this the same Hillary Clinton that was on the Wal-Mart board from
1986 to 1992?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[DI]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:469690bd$0$12034$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> DI wrote:
>>> "HWNMNBM" wrote in message
>>> news:ohsb93dr0atk3klc795sqtnu7molrbknve@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> Where do you get your news DI?
>>
>>> Wal-Mart
>>
>> LOL Hillary will put an end to that! (Although Mrs. Obama will suffer,
>> since she's on the board of a Satan's Supplier.)
>>
>> Speaking of Satan, Hill and Bill made money off Exxon-Mobil and Big
>> Pharma stocks -- and lately even more by shorting them (albeit in a
>> not-so-bloody-blind trust) since they're so publicly demonizing the
>> companies. No fraud and hypocrisy there!
>>
>> Interesting times.
>
> Is this the same Hillary Clinton that was on the Wal-Mart board from 1986
> to 1992?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

Shhh, don't let that out, she's trying to hide it.

[Bill Sornson]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> DI wrote:
>>> "HWNMNBM" wrote in message
>>> news:ohsb93dr0atk3klc795sqtnu7molrbknve@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> Where do you get your news DI?

>>> Wal-Mart

>> LOL Hillary will put an end to that! (Although Mrs. Obama will
>> suffer, since she's on the board of a Satan's Supplier.)
>>
>> Speaking of Satan, Hill and Bill made money off Exxon-Mobil and Big
>> Pharma stocks -- and lately even more by shorting them (albeit in a
>> not-so-bloody-blind trust) since they're so publicly demonizing the
>> companies. No fraud and hypocrisy there!
>>
>> Interesting times.

> Is this the same Hillary Clinton that was on the Wal-Mart board from
> 1986 to 1992?

Yes, the one that trashes corporate America now. (Well, for the BASE, at
least.)

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:36:55 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:

>
>"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:469690bd$0$12034$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> DI wrote:
>>>> "HWNMNBM" wrote in message
>>>> news:ohsb93dr0atk3klc795sqtnu7molrbknve@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>> Where do you get your news DI?
>>>
>>>> Wal-Mart
>>>
>>> LOL Hillary will put an end to that! (Although Mrs. Obama will suffer,
>>> since she's on the board of a Satan's Supplier.)
>>>
>>> Speaking of Satan, Hill and Bill made money off Exxon-Mobil and Big
>>> Pharma stocks -- and lately even more by shorting them (albeit in a
>>> not-so-bloody-blind trust) since they're so publicly demonizing the
>>> companies. No fraud and hypocr