I
Ian Smith
Guest
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > Heh! Clearly not. Hmmm: take a design which is inherently rigid and
> > has worked well for a century or more, and "improve" it by moving a
> > major stress point into the unsupported part of a thin-walled tube.
> > Run that by me again, will you? ;-)
>
> On the one hand, yes, it's pointless, but OTOH there are enough of them
> about in the world doing good service to demonstrate that the design
> isn't fundamentally borked and can be made quite acceptably well for it
> to be a moot point.
No, it can still be fundamentally borked. It _is_ fundamentally
borked, it's simply the case that it's reasonably easy to compensate
for the fundamental problem by means of detailing the tubes
appropriately.
There _is_ a fundamental flaw, but they overcome it by putting in more
material than would otherwise be necessary. That it can be compensated
makes it no less fundamental.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > Heh! Clearly not. Hmmm: take a design which is inherently rigid and
> > has worked well for a century or more, and "improve" it by moving a
> > major stress point into the unsupported part of a thin-walled tube.
> > Run that by me again, will you? ;-)
>
> On the one hand, yes, it's pointless, but OTOH there are enough of them
> about in the world doing good service to demonstrate that the design
> isn't fundamentally borked and can be made quite acceptably well for it
> to be a moot point.
No, it can still be fundamentally borked. It _is_ fundamentally
borked, it's simply the case that it's reasonably easy to compensate
for the fundamental problem by means of detailing the tubes
appropriately.
There _is_ a fundamental flaw, but they overcome it by putting in more
material than would otherwise be necessary. That it can be compensated
makes it no less fundamental.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|