Jake,
I like you as a person, so it is not about that.
But I do think a great definition of "unwiseness" is to first state that you didn't read all of my inititial posting and then follow-up with claims about what you feel I failed to mention.
You could at least do me the honour of actually reading the article you are about to critize ? Fact checking and that sort of stuff.
Lets look at what we wrote okay.
You wrote :
... because I'm not reading through all that text (I prefer "efficient"...but whatever). You claim that you can create a tube of the same weight out of aluminum with the same bending characteristics as one from carbon. Well no $hit Sherlock! However, the diameters are not going to be the same.
When I had already written in the post you replied to :
... A little further down I defined what could be typical dimensions of a carbon A-cat boom (0.04 x 0.002 mtr.). Clearly a fully equivalent boom can be produced in aluminium, both in weight and stiffness, when the extrusion has the dimensions 0.059 x 0.001 mtr ...
To copy the expression you used first : "no $hit Sherlock".
I had already stated in my first posting that the diameters wouldn't be the same. Add to this that such an observation is trivial (obvious).
A component having the same weight, same stiffness AND same dimensions as another component would practically have to be made of the exact same material, wouldn't it ?
Pardon my emotional outburst. I got a little annoyed chasing wraiths created by a person who clearly didn't read the whole posting. And the "INCOMING" picture and "No $hit Sherlock", "Mr tensile strength" and "Mr density" quote's aren't much justification to calling you dumb, or are they ?
I hope you can now understand my use of descriptions in line of the word "stupid".
If you just had read all my posting and took a little time to reflect on what was written then you would have recognized the "uselessness" of your comments before you wrote them down.
Wouter
