Quote:
Originally Posted by Treeve
Your fixation with specifics is what is the problem - no one but you was taking it so specifically. For example ‘in which area was the failure?’ ‘The failure was in the area around the shock connection’. But I didn’t specifically mention cross section areas but a generic term of ‘areas’. The post defined the simple support and moment as well as the causes of these in what is effectively a cantilever setup.
Whilst the internet is a conduit for communication you seem to be going out of your way to use it as a conduit for arguing and for trying to make yourself seem superior by using lots of long words that layman’s terms don’t include. As I’m sure you realise, the majority of persons on this forum are in the category ‘not engineers’, so we should at least try to explain things in ways they understand.
Your constant concerns about my use of the word ‘by’ to define the (locational) areas of the failure and the forces applied mean that I have edited the post. And by locational I mean ‘I live in an area near a school and a hospital’. No mention of specifics, but people will know straight away that there is a hospital and school near my house with no need to define cross sections or specific definitions. As you wrote - my description was minimally misleading, and seemingly specifically mislead by you in your understanding. My description of the forces however was correct. Your interpretation of my description of the area was just as incorrectly interpreted by you by me.
Thanks for communicating and note that 80% of communication is by body language - something unavailable to written word. This is also not fully paid for technical advice whereby more time and effort will be put in to offering engineering advice to ensure a proper understanding. So whilst I may be an engineer employed in the automotive field specifically around home built vehicles in Australia, I’m also just a dude who enjoys building cars and being on forums trying to help people out along the way. And not getting paid for it so it doesn’t need to be perfect. In fact, my insurance doesn’t cover professional advice given on forums which is why I never treat it as such.
Treeve
|
Treeve my fixation is not with specifics, any level of detail is OK. My fixation is with BS masquerading as fact.
When you represent yourself as an engineer people hold your commentary in higher regard and asign more significance to it. Your representation of the forces and subsequent failure analysis was simply incorrect but the average forum participant would not know that.
To use the excuse that you are not being paid so factual representations are not necessary is counter intuitive to what these forums are about which is, to the extent possible, factually representing the origins of a problem and offering correct advice based on fact to help the other forum member(s). You did not!
To argue you were not paid and therefor had no obligation to factually or accurately respond is ludicrous. Your representation that ~80% of communication is non verbal/written i.e. body language may be true in daily conversation but not in technical papers or component failure assessments.
Technical papers have zero non written communication. The phenomena at hand is described and evaluated factually. The environmental conditions prior to the occurrence, during and after the occurrence are documented and the events are studied to determine the answers to the perennial what, when, where, why and how questions.
The guys on the site here may not be graduate engineers (although some are) but they are pretty bright and can pick up on the gist of things rather quickly. Again as I had previously stated most physical phenomena have a rather simple analog that can be used to explain them. If you remember when you were in school and the professor embarked on a new and complex concept with the class he would lead in with a less sophisticated analog bringing you into the more complex subject.
For those of us who were schooled in these disciplines it is inconceivable that you would not extend the same considerations, to Forum enthusiasts who are trying to understand and learn, as your professors did for you when you were trying to understand and learn.
Ed