the importance of thermostats

On 2013-09-22, jim beam > wrote:
> On 09/21/2013 05:02 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>> On 09/21/2013 02:48 PM, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> i'm not laughing at you brent. you shame the technology industry and
>>> pollute the web with your trenchant anosognosic stupidity. frankly,
>>> you're a disgrace.
>>
>> You're the pot calling the good china black, you moron.
>>
>> nate
>>
>
> apparently you're another one that can't be bothered to look up
> "amorphous" and "anisotropic" before sticking your oar in. but you've
> never been one to let facts get in the way of your race to the bottom.
> which would also of course be why you snipped the facts from the
> preceding post - they're just too inconvenient.

So says the guy who launches into tirades of insults instead defending
his arguments. Someone who blathers forth a bunch of nonsense like:
"modeling complex three-dimensional anisotropic solidification
contraction" and then insults people.

On 2013-09-21, jim beam > wrote:
> On 09/21/2013 08:36 AM, Brent wrote:
>> On 2013-09-21, jim beam > wrote:
>>> On 09/20/2013 11:02 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2013-09-20, jim beam > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Nor was your answer about
>>>>>> crystal formation in cooling metals in any remote way relevant. You
>>>>>> can't even come up with a bull**** way to make it relevant. All you do
>>>>>> is bluster and insult. YOU FAILED.
>>>>>
>>>>> um, crystallization or solidification are not unique to metals retard.
>>>>> either you're just unspeakably stoooopid or you're bull****ting.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you noticed I never stated that either was unique to metals.
>>>
>>> so why did you say "your answer about crystal formation in cooling
>>> metals" then??? ****ing bull****ting retard.
>>
>>>> However, "complex three-dimensional anisotropic solidification
>>>> contraction" Is a hamfisted showy way of expressing the different
>>>> crystal structures that occur on the outside of metal part compared to
>>>> the interior as the material cools and contracts.
>>
>>> bull****. "solidification" != "crystallization". solidification
>>> /includes/ crystallization, but amorphous solids don't crystallize as
>>> they set. ****ing idiot that clearly doesn't know their own supposed
>>> business.
>>
>> Look at the idiot squirm. Except you didn't write amporhous.
>
> !!!!!!!! you can't even copy correctly - it's A-M-O-R-P-H-O-U-S.
>
>
>> You wrote
>> anisotropic. Squirm squirm squirmy.
>
> uh, they're completely different properties, retard. you can have
> anisotropic amorphous solids - toughened glass is an example. and you
> can have isotropic crystalline solids. but true isotropy is rare and
> amorphousness is not.

It's jim beam special case and word isolation again which has absolutely
nothing to do with what he actually wrote:

"modeling complex three-dimensional anisotropic solidification
contraction"


> but getting back to you, for someone who claims to be a "degreed
> engineer" who says they work in materials, you're outstandingly
> clueless. have you ever considered going back to your alma mater and
> asking for a tuition refund??? they clearly ripped you off if they
> didn't teach you anything. and they failed in their duties of
> accreditation if they accepted you onto a course you couldn't handle.
> either that or you're not what you say you are - which means you're fraud.


And of course the insults to cover it up.
You're such a predictable ass.
The only fraud is a guy who works on hondas in his yard and has
delusions based upon having read a few things over the years.

>> What you did is jam a bunch of words
>> together to sound like you knew something. Now you keep pretending each
>> word stands separately instead of together. Yes, amorphous materials
>> shrink too, and they don't crystalize in the process, but you modified
>> solidification with anisotropic. It's fun to watch you squirm.

> see above and learn what the words mean. after all, it's what google's
> for. [but the fact that you seem consistently incapable of something so
> basic speaks volumes. maybe you need to put your other hand back on the
> mouse for a moment or two?]

You should learn what words mean when put together.

"modeling complex three-dimensional anisotropic solidification
contraction"

means something different than this list of individual words:

modeling
complex
three
dimensional
anisotropic
solidification
contraction

Some day you'll learn that.

On 2013-09-21, Tegger > wrote:
> Brent > wrote in
>> Here's a simulation of molding that calculates warp, weld lines, etc.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQWsDNmVD0E

> That was a very interesting video, so thanks for the link. Now I see
> exactly what you mean by knit/weld lines. It's obvious that if the lines
> were in critical areas they would act as built-in stress-risers. and thus
> as potential fail points. The video is also very illustrative in describing
> how critical is the placement of the gate(s).
>
> I imagine development of injection-molding must be substantially less
> expensive and less time-consuming now than it was before Solidworks and
> related software came out. How'd they do the design before? Educated-
> guesswork? Tables of some kind?

It was all experience driven and when things turned out badly the tools
had to be changed. Many still do it that way due to the expense of the
software. Some places rely on the mold makers to do it. Since I stopped
doing thin-walled parts I haven't had to deal with knit lines much. With
thicker walls the problem has mostly been warp for what I am working on.

> One thing the narrator didn't address outside of a simple mention was the
> air-traps detected by the software. How are those dealt with, just by
> drilling some tiny holes in the mold?

Vents in the mold. Usually thin gaps at the parting line a couple
thousandths of an inch. The air gets out but without causing flash.
Venting corrections have never been a big deal IME.

> Also, I don't quite understand how /increasing/ wall thickness would
> /shorten/ cooling times. And I don't understand how shrinkage rates can
> decline from ~10% to ~1-2% just with a change in the structure. Or was that
> affected by the change in material from PC to PC/ABS?

> Note: My hearing is very poor (I wear two hearing aids). The narrator has
> an accent, and I am unable to read his lips since he does not appear in the
> video, so I may have missed a lot of what he was saying.

Shrink rate is a material property, what he's talking about is how
packing pressure and hold time changes the results. The high 10% figure
was due to not having the mold packed out properly rather than the
material. He does that segment entirely with PC/ABS and the same wall
thickness. He's just changing the pressure and the hold time.

On 09/22/2013 12:01 AM, jim beam wrote:
> On 09/21/2013 05:02 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>> On 09/21/2013 02:48 PM, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> i'm not laughing at you brent. you shame the technology industry and
>>> pollute the web with your trenchant anosognosic stupidity. frankly,
>>> you're a disgrace.
>>
>> You're the pot calling the good china black, you moron.
>>
>> nate
>>
>
> apparently you're another one that can't be bothered to look up
> "amorphous" and "anisotropic" before sticking your oar in.

Yay! Buzzwords!

> but you've
> never been one to let facts get in the way of your race to the bottom.
> which would also of course be why you snipped the facts from the

No, no you haven't.

> preceding post - they're just too inconvenient.

No "facts" present - clearly you haven't a ****ing clue what you're
blathering about. As usual. And you've been displaying your ignorance
20x a day lately in your clear attempt to remove all intelligent
discussion from Usenet. Grow up, get a ****ing education, and knock it
the **** off.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Brent > wrote in
:


>
> Shrink rate is a material property, what he's talking about is how
> packing pressure and hold time changes the results. The high 10%
> figure was due to not having the mold packed out properly rather than
> the material. He does that segment entirely with PC/ABS and the same
> wall thickness. He's just changing the pressure and the hold time.
>
>



Thanks. This was quite an education. For me, purely academic, but
educational anyway.

It's been amusing watching beam bluster and twist and turn rather than
answer questions honestly. I don't know what's happened between 2005 and
now, but this jim beam is much more obnoxious than the old one was. The
change wasn't sudden, but has been gradual over the years, so I'm convinced
this is the same person I used to exchange email with.

--
Tegger