Donald G. Shead - most prolific member of Newsgroup.

Bill Vajk wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:

Martin Hogbin wrote:

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message ...

"John Leonard" wrote in message
m...

Who writes this guys stuff? I mean if he has a job, how can he do this?

Forty-some years ago I couldn't even spell it John: Now I are a retired
bridge engineer(:-)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to let us know which bridges
you were involved in the design of.

****Head claims to have designed ornamental ironmongery. You may now
thank chemists for rust.

As general rule, rust doesn't work very well.......

Unclear on the concept, as usual.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Littlemanwearingbigboypants whines:

Bill Vajk wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:

Martin Hogbin wrote:

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message ...

"John Leonard" wrote in message
. com...

Who writes this guys stuff? I mean if he has a job, how can he do this?

Forty-some years ago I couldn't even spell it John: Now I are a retired
bridge engineer(:-)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to let us know which bridges
you were involved in the design of.

****Head claims to have designed ornamental ironmongery. You may now
thank chemists for rust.

http://www.michaeltaylor.ca/Culture/bu-chain.shtml

As general rule, rust doesn't work very well.......

Unclear on the concept, as usual.

Thus whined one simple minded humor impaired wretch.

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message
...

"John Leonard" wrote in message
.. .
Who writes this guys stuff? I mean if he has a job, how can he
do this?


Forty-some years ago I couldn't even spell it John: Now I are a
retired
bridge engineer(:-)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to let us know which bridges
you were involved in the design of.

So we know which ones not to drive over? 8 )

he justs repeats the same stuff endlessly - lots of quantity very little
quality unforttunately

"John Leonard" wrote in message
.. .
Who writes this guys stuff? I mean if he has a job, how can he do this?

"Uncle Al" wrote in message ...
Martin Hogbin wrote:

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message ...


Forty-some years ago I couldn't even spell it John: Now I are a retired
bridge engineer(:-)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to let us know which bridges
you were involved in the design of.

****Head claims to have designed ornamental ironmongery. You may now
thank chemists for rust.

My main concern was to ensure that I could keep well clear of any
bridges designed by Shead.

Martin Hogbin

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Martin Hogbin wrote:

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message
...


Forty-some years ago I couldn't even spell it John: Now I are a
retired
bridge engineer(:-)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to let us know which bridges
you were involved in the design of.

****Head claims to have designed ornamental ironmongery. You may now
thank chemists for rust.

My main concern was to ensure that I could keep well clear of any
bridges designed by Shead.

Martin Hogbin



Wouldn't worry about it........ They surly are not still
standing.....

In article , "Martin Hogbin" writes:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message ...
Martin Hogbin wrote:

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message ...


Forty-some years ago I couldn't even spell it John: Now I are a retired
bridge engineer(:-)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to let us know which bridges
you were involved in the design of.

****Head claims to have designed ornamental ironmongery. You may now
thank chemists for rust.

My main concern was to ensure that I could keep well clear of any
bridges designed by Shead.

I would think that, if anybody was stupid enough to let him design
one, it is probably gone by now.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...


Ronald Stepp wrote:


Who can't tell 16 from 32 as g.

Who can't grasp calculus or it's real world applications.

I think Shead is really Spaceman. Spaceman insisted that -4 * -4 = -16.
Shead insists that 16 = 32. Same sort of error.

Bob Kolker


Spaceman's error was only in not realizing that like signs give plus
answers: Your more grievious error is in not knowing the difference between
a rate of change in position [s/t² = a/2 and/or g/2], and a rate of change,
in a rate of change in position [2s/t² = a and/or g].

Where s is a 'forced change in position', and is proportional to the force
that causes it: So that a/2 and g/2 are rates of change in position [s/t²],
and a and g are accelerations: Which accelerations are rates of change in
rates of change in position [2s/t²].

That's why the product of a net force [f] times the (forced) displacement
[s] that it causes is equal to the rate of displacement [s/t] that it causes
[ft = s/t]!

Further 'reduction' gives us [ft²/s]; a constant, which is equal to mass
_divided by two_: So that: m/2 = ft²/s, and m = 2ft²/s.... I think!

If you remember, I worked a long time on "that darned 2", and these are the
final answers. I hope.

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message om...
Spaceman's error was only in not realizing that like signs give plus
answers: Your more grievious error is in not knowing the difference between
a rate of change in position [s/t² = a/2 and/or g/2], and a rate of change,
in a rate of change in position [2s/t² = a and/or g].

You have your 2's and 1/2's mixed up in these formulas.
Also, s/t^2 is not a rate of change in position.

Where s is a 'forced change in position', and is proportional to the force
that causes it: So that a/2 and g/2 are rates of change in position [s/t²],
and a and g are accelerations: Which accelerations are rates of change in
rates of change in position [2s/t²].

Your 2's and 1/2's are still mixed up.

That's why the product of a net force [f] times the (forced) displacement
[s] that it causes is equal to the rate of displacement [s/t] that it causes
[ft = s/t]!

The equation you wrote down is neither correct, nor equivalent
to your statement of it in words, which is also incorrect.

Further 'reduction' gives us [ft²/s]; a constant, which is equal to mass
_divided by two_: So that: m/2 = ft²/s, and m = 2ft²/s.... I think!

Your 2's and 1/2's are still mixed up.

If you remember, I worked a long time on "that darned 2", and these are the
final answers. I hope.

Check your work. Remember that the 1/2 comes from the fact that the
velocity is changing (specifically, changing at a constant rate).

Oops. Correction: You had your 2's right at the beginning, but
had them mixed them up later, and what you had in between was
totally wrong, and the whole post is barely legible and doesn't
make any real point.