Dear Spitlisters, et. al.
Only please to remember that for the occasional Henry Ford and Wright
brothers, there were _thousands_ of unsuccessful folks trying to do
the same thing. Some with more intelligence, some with less; some
with more funding, some with less; some with more [fill-in-the-blank],
some with less.
Henry Ford wouldn't have stood a chance but for the Bessemer's steel
process, Goodyear's vulcanizing, Otto's combustion cycle, Ackerman's
steering geometry, ... (each and all invented by long hard years of
science, experimenting and [EGAD!] engineering). And the Wrights
were not just bicycle mechanics -- they were scientists and engineers
[EGAD again!] They used wind tunnels (of their own design and
construction), studied the literature that was extant at the time,
tried _many_ of the failed stunts and _kept_what_worked_. Henry Ford
was really an economist and a marketer. That's what the vehicle
needed. The Wrights were actually engineers; not as "educated" as
some but engineers none the less. Their real accomplishment was in
building a light-enough, powerful enough engine for their flying
machine. Machines were already flying; they weren't self propelled.
And these people knew what worked and what didn't. If the oil had
blown out of their dipstick tube, I'm quite sure they would have been
able look at the logbook and reverse each recent change (including the
air pump disconnection) one at a time until they discovered the REAL
cause of the excessive pressure. Then they would have been quite
comfortable disconnecting the air pump again, because it didn't really
affect the crankcase pressure after all.
I'm sorry [Scott's] brother has a doctorate in history, but I'm glad
it's not in engineering. He seems to be in a field that suits his
knowledge, so he's safe. (And we are too, as long as he sticks to
history.) Intelligence has nothing to do with common sense; knowledge
in a particular field may not apply to another, even if it is closely
related. I take things that Linus Pauling promotes with a grain of
salt -- vitamins and vaccines are both health-related, but all of his
vitamin-related knowledge is based on hearsay and anecdote, while his
vaccine work was science.
Joe Curry has done his experiments, knows what works on his car, and
accepts the responsibility for his changes -- whether _I_ think they
work or not. And Trevor (IMO) knows his engineering, at least as far
as what he has spoken about is concerned. I'm sure that either one,
given a misbehaving engine, could correct the problems. I'm also sure
that the fixes and the final results would be different. FWIW.
We don't need no common sense -- we got LAWS!
So there,
Donald.
> From: "Scott A. Roberts" <herald1200@home.com>
> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 11:30:30 -0500
>
> Trevor, et al-
>
> I can usually do better than the manuals. Just cause I'm ornery and
> intelligent enough to do so on my own. I taught myself to work on cars and
> reasoned out the theories which control the operation of a car engine all by
> myself, just from looking over the example I was working with, and taking it
> apart and putting it back together. Usually without the help of a manual. I
> even figured out how the SU- HS2 carbs I rebuilt worked, purely by going
> over them enough and wondering and screwing around with them.
>
> How much "corporate funding" did Henry Ford have, when he put the world on
> wheels. (Not saying he invented the blame things, just he perfected the
> manufacture to a fine degree.)
>
> We could also wonder how two bike mechanics from Dayton developed the start
> of the modern age of flight.
>
> Or a tank mechanic from Russia invented the single most dependable, and most
> used rifle in the world today.
>
> An earlier world produced very capable and learned men, who for thousands of
> years promulgated a theory the world was flat, and at the center of the
> universe, ignoring many indications to the contrary. To dispute them was
> heresy.
>
> My brother has his doctorate in history, and can't put the front tire on a
> bicycle(literally!) Sometimes educated people are the most closed minded,
> and most prone to be wrong. Enlightened people aren't always enlightened,
> and ignorant people aren't always ignorant. And, to throw another splinter
> on the fire, just because something has "always been done that way" doesn't
> mean it is being done right.
|