Vibration damping

[[email protected]]

Scott wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > First, I don't see how riders are going to apply any significant
> > impulses with frequencies higher than the pedaling rate. And if they
> > somehow did, those would be expected to be essentially identical on the
> > two frames.
> >
> >
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> The vibrations coming through the frame will resonate in buttisimo
> region of the rider, creating a jiggling effect. Said jiggling often
> magnifies the vibration, and if the rider is not careful, the result is
> a harmonic resonance that causes the frame to vibrate itself apart.

Sorry, no.

It sounds like you're thinking of the rider's mass causing resonance.
But the resonant frequency of a large mass is low, other things being
equal. The presence of the rider is going to reduce the "jiggling" at
the surface of the saddle, not increase it.

Reach into your desk and find a rubber band. Hang something with very
little mass from the rubber band (a tiny ball of crumpled paper,
perhaps) and pluck the rubber band. You should see lots of "jiggling."

Repeat by hanging something massier, like a magazine. Pluck again.
The magazine won't jiggle nearly as much.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

dvt wrote:
> RonSonic wrote:
> > They are not attempting a
> > suspension as your example describes...
>
> Go to
>
> http://www.specialized.com/bc/techlab_zertz.jsp?minisite=10080&a=b
>
> Click on "see it in action."
>
> They are advertising a suspension.
>

That little animation at "see it in action" certainly visually
*implies* a suspension, doesn't it?

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

[email protected] wrote:

> Dan Connelly wrote:
>> dvt wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> what makes you say that? the c.f. frame shows order of magnitude
>>>> differences below about 30 Hz, the ti frame almost zero. above that,
>>>> frequency, the differences get even more interesting and substantially
>>>> larger in places.
>
>>> Jim, are you sure you're looking at the right graphs? The titles are
>>> above the charts, not below.
>
>> For part of the spectrum, the CF may do better -- he's correct. at
>> higher freq, the Ti may do better.
>
> A narrow part of the spectrum, yes. But "order of magnitude differences
> below 30 Hz?" I don't see that.

Especially without any estimate of error, for one. The only meaningful
conclusion I see is, as Dan says, that Specialized could easily publish
reasonable tests of their product, but have not done so. At best, this
shows an incredible lack of respect for their customers. As long as these
things are not questioned by a significant number of customers, this lack
of respect is probably deserved.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly

 

[Scott]

[email protected] wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > First, I don't see how riders are going to apply any significant
> > > impulses with frequencies higher than the pedaling rate. And if they
> > > somehow did, those would be expected to be essentially identical on the
> > > two frames.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Frank Krygowski
> >
> > The vibrations coming through the frame will resonate in buttisimo
> > region of the rider, creating a jiggling effect. Said jiggling often
> > magnifies the vibration, and if the rider is not careful, the result is
> > a harmonic resonance that causes the frame to vibrate itself apart.
>
> Sorry, no.
>
> It sounds like you're thinking of the rider's mass causing resonance.
> But the resonant frequency of a large mass is low, other things being
> equal. The presence of the rider is going to reduce the "jiggling" at
> the surface of the saddle, not increase it.
>
> Reach into your desk and find a rubber band. Hang something with very
> little mass from the rubber band (a tiny ball of crumpled paper,
> perhaps) and pluck the rubber band. You should see lots of "jiggling."
>
> Repeat by hanging something massier, like a magazine. Pluck again.
> The magazine won't jiggle nearly as much.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

What if it's a girlie magazine? Would that jiggle more?

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Joe Riel wrote:

> To better understand this, consider a compression wave (presumably the
> Zertz works on transverse waves rather than compression (longitudinal)
> waves, but that's another issue) hitting the infinite mass as a series
> of tennis balls bouncing off a brick wall. The wall doesn't move.

Really?

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:00:15 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:13:30 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On a similar note, did any of you see the car commercial where they
>>>show a bare SUV frame and a guy in a fire suit bangs it with a hammer?
>>>Then flames engulf the thing, and there's an inside shot of one of the
>>>frame members with the heat-sensitive foam expaning. The same guy
>>>then bangs on the frame and gets a dull thud.
>>
>>What's that supposed to demonstrate? If your car burns out, afterwards the
>>frame mebers will be filled with non-structural foam?
>
>I think the message is that they expand the foam during the
>manufacturing process. Otherwise it would be of pretty questionable
>value to the consumer.

Okay, so it's for.. what, sound insulation? I somehow seriously doubt the
frame is the most significant contributor to the sound. OTOH, SUVs do tend
to be exceedingly crappily designed trucks, rather than actual cars.


Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:25:01 +0100, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Rude, aren't you.

Excuse me? This from *you*?!

Look, you clearly hate each and every single one of the contributors to
this forum. This can't possibly be fun for you. So just leave.

Jasper

 

[jim beam]

dvt wrote:
> Dan Connelly wrote:
>
>> dvt wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> what makes you say that? the c.f. frame shows order of magnitude
>>>> differences below about 30 Hz, the ti frame almost zero. above
>>>> that, frequency, the differences get even more interesting and
>>>> substantially larger in places.
>
>
>>> Jim, are you sure you're looking at the right graphs? The titles are
>>> above the charts, not below.
>
>
>> For part of the spectrum, the CF may do better -- he's correct. at
>> higher
>> freq, the Ti may do better.
>
>
> A narrow part of the spectrum, yes. But "order of magnitude differences
> below 30 Hz?" I don't see that.
>
the gap between between the two lines for axle & saddle mounted sensor.
one frame has it, the other doesn't.

 

[jim beam]

dvt wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> ok, as far as structures like frames are concerned, stiffness is
>> vital, hence the interest in modulus. as far as our kind of 6/4
>> alloys are concerned, they also happen to have a higher yield and uts
>> than 3/2.5. as you question, those are not necessarily related, but as
>> a comparison between these two alloy classes, they happen to go hand
>> in hand.
>
>
>
> I did a little searching on matweb.com and found that most 6/4 alloys
> are stiffer and stronger than most 3/2.5 alloys.

thank you.

>
>> the fact that our 6/4 has higher modulus and more importantly,
>> specific modulus, happens to be a huge advantage - not something that
>> can be dismissed with incorrect data about workability & weldability.
>
>
> I assume you direct your "incorrect data" comment at Habanero. Looking
> at http://habcycles.com/techstuf.html#tubes, I don't see any mention of
> workability and weldability. Are you referring to something else?

for weldability:
"The problem is that the weld reduces the strength and resilience of the
tube." if a seamed tube is weak, how can the frame be joined?
especially where thicker butted wall thickness is not employed.

for workability, it's been updated. it now reads:
"/Until recently/, 6/4 bike frames were all made from seamed tubing".
[my emphasis.] before, reynolds and others' production of seamless
drawn 6/4 was apparently unknown to hickey.

>
>> for a potted summary, check:
>>
>> http://www.reynoldscycles.co.uk/compproperties.html
>
>
> Their Ti data seems in line with the stuff I found at matweb.com.
>

 

[jim beam]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>>jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>dvt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>for instance, 6/4 [Ti] is superior to 3/2.5 because it has a higher
>>>>>>modulus. that also means higher strength to weight ratio.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't understand the cause/effect relationship between higher modulus
>>>>>and higher strength/weight. Can you elaborate?
>>>>
>>>>yes, could be phrased better. will get back to you tonight - off to work.
>>>
>>>Happy googling. Jose did a fine job of answering for me (thanks,
>>>Jose), so I won't waste the electrons.
>>
>>you were the kid in the schoolyard that would call names but wouldn't
>>fight. and not smart enough to know when to keep quiet.
>
>
> Hey, you were the one who had to run away and try to backpedal

backpedal? on strength of reinforced structures? the strength of a
structure cannot exceed that of the individual components, and i stand
by that statement. you otoh had nothing to contribute to that debate.
and i'm still awaiting a mathematical explanation for a structure as a
whole. as i presume it's not forthcoming from you or krygowski, i'm
taking myself off to the library this holiday. feel free to beat me to
it and post something useful. [sic]

> on the
> bogus claims you made - I just stayed right here and am enjoying the
> show. It looks like others have taken you to task down-thread, so
> I'll continue to enjoy, apparently.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[jim beam]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Jose Rizal wrote:
>
>
>>> Your half-baked technical
>>>posturing and consistent name-calling of those who shoot down your
>>>falsities exposes you for what you have always been: a poser. Is the
>>>pay-off you get really worth it?
>>
>>what's my payoff jose? am i selling you anything? get with the
>>killfile if you don't like it - it's /real/ simple!
>
>
> Translation: "Dang, I can't refute a word you said, so please go away
> so I can maintain the illusion that I have a clue... at least to
> myself."
>
> Won't help, jim. You just keep digging your hole deeper.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

wow, you still don't get it do you. jose is the guy that has no concept
of equilibrium when arguing simple leverage and goes to great lengths to
avoid its discussion. it's therefore imperative to keep it superficial
with him.

his avoidance is like yours when it comes to answering direct questions
about your marketingspeak, only with jose, i think he genuinely doesn't
get it. unlike you, the [not so] artful dodger.

 

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:29:52 -0500, dvt <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>> On 12 Dec 2005 18:15:45 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>If you want to cushion things, you want the force to pass through the
>>>rubber, not alongside it. Series, not parallel.
>
>> Just like Jobst's handlebars wrapped with tape, the added material will reduce
>> resonances and vibration. No it won't isolate, but it will damp.
>
>It will isolate. Any vibrations in the handlebar must pass through the
>tape in order to reach the rider.

He was dropping them, not riding on them.

Ron

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>If stiffness is "vital" it would be the stiffness of the structure, not
>>>the inherent stiffness of the material itself. As any cycling
>>>metallurgist must know, aluminum has an elastic modulus about one third
>>>that of steel - IOW, it's three times limper than steel - yet it is
>>>usually used to make the stiffest frames.
>>
>>you are the choicest bullshitter i've ever encountered.
>
>
> Oh? You mean it's not true that the modulus of elasticity of aluminum
> is one third that of steel? And it's not true that aluminum is used to
> make very stiff frames? Or are you saying it's the stiffness of the
> material that matters, even if it makes a noodle of a bike frame? (Are
> you espousing frames made of beryllium wire?)

krygowski, what is specific modulus? and how does it relate to
structures where weight is a factor? because if it's not a factor,
there's a number of aerospace positions open for you i'm sure.

and btw, beryllium /has/ been made into a frame.

>
>
>> there are 3 components krygowski:
>>modulus, density & yield.
>
>
> You're not explaining yourself very well. Sure, those are three very
> nice mechanical properties. But are you pretending those are _all_ a
> designer needs to look at in order to design a frame?
>
> I'm saying the opposite - that a designer needs to consider other
> engineering properties, some of which are not so precisely defined.
> Fatigue resistance would matter. And ductility, at least for metals.
> And weldability, or adaptability to other fastening techniques. And
> perhaps corrosion resistance. And others, no doubt. And the designer
> makes design choices based on the expected use, the material
> properties, the manufacturing techniques and economics, among other
> things.
>
> It sounds like my world is less simple than yours.

it's funny how you dig around for excuses to muddy the water when you're
shown to be bullshitting.

>
>
>>>I'd say Mark's website did an excellent job of describing all the
>>>above, and laying out the rationale for his design choices.
>>
>>yeah, like espousing straight gauge tube - which is inferior in fatigue,
>>and eschewing 6/4 ti, a much superior material.
>
>
> All you've got to do is come up with a pile of Habanero frames
> that failed in fatigue, and you've made one small point.

eh? are you really trying to say that a butted tube with thicker ends
has no purpose? how about the strength of a weld compared to the base?
does that not affect structural integrity? 'cos if that's the case,
you're missing that highly lucrative cost cutting position at boeing.

>
> Obviously, I doubt very much you can do that. Consequently, I assume
> even ruder insults will follow.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

 

[[email protected]]

jim beam wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> > Oh? You mean it's not true that the modulus of elasticity of aluminum
> > is one third that of steel? And it's not true that aluminum is used to
> > make very stiff frames? Or are you saying it's the stiffness of the
> > material that matters, even if it makes a noodle of a bike frame? (Are
> > you espousing frames made of beryllium wire?)
>
> krygowski, what is specific modulus?

I know what it is, Jim. And I note that you're trying to change the
subject.

As Mark clearly explains on his site, and as I've explained here, it's
foolish to fixate on one property and pretend it's the only thing that
matters.

> and btw, beryllium /has/ been made into a frame.

Of course, I know that. That's why I mentioned it.

Beryllium has some unique properties. Wonderfully light, wonderfully
stiff. Terrific specific modulus. But incredibly, incredibly
difficult to work with.

By the "logic" of your argument, that difficulty shouldn't matter. We
should just pick out the metal with the absolute best property of your
choice (specific modulus? fatigue resistance? whatever) and build ALL
bikes from it, no matter the tradeoffs and no matter the cost. Right?

If that's not right - if designers and manufacturers should take other
factors into account - then you have no justification for your harangue
on titanium alloys.


Oh, and BTW - no frame has ever been built of beryllium _wire_.
Because, again, it's not the rigidity of the metal that matters so
much; it's the rigidity of the _structure_.


> > All you've got to do is come up with a pile of Habanero frames
> > that failed in fatigue, and you've made one small point.
>
> eh? are you really trying to say that a butted tube with thicker ends
> has no purpose?

No, I'm trying to say that Habanero frames appear to be suitably
fatigue resistant, even though they're not made of your favorite
titanium alloy or your favorite tube shape.

IOW, they work, and your simplistic objections have no merit.

(BTW, you're allowed to not buy one, of course, for any reason you
choose. To each his own. It's the illogic of your attacks that's
objectionable.)

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

>> WOW. Personally I'd be scared to death of any bike that puts 1" of
>> travel into the bottom 3" of their rigid fork (not to mention into the
>> rear/bottom few inches of their stays).
>>
>At the Paris salon, in October, I think it was LOOK that demonstrated their
>equipment abuse testing machines. The fork pivot was held in a clamp, and
>(some?) large force was applied to the dropouts which were connected by an
>"axle". Closer to two inches of movement of the dropouts, and it was being
>counted at over 100 000 cycles at that point. But that was only something
>real that I (and a few hundred thousand others) saw - not a napkin
>calculation. Maybe it won't fit into this forum.

Did I *really* have to type "vertical travel" to what I wrote (didn't
think it was necessary after viewing the website in question)?

Of course, if you saw LOOK demonstrating how they get two inches of
VERTICAL movement out of one of their rigid forks, I'm willing to eat
my humble pie.

If you've ever seen anything remotely similar to the Specialized
website we were discussing, I'm very interested. Either someone has
found new ways to approach physics, or you've taken some really
amazing drugs. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:00:15 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
>wrote:

>>I think the message is that they expand the foam during the
>>manufacturing process. Otherwise it would be of pretty questionable
>>value to the consumer.
>
>Okay, so it's for.. what, sound insulation? I somehow seriously doubt the
>frame is the most significant contributor to the sound. OTOH, SUVs do tend
>to be exceedingly crappily designed trucks, rather than actual cars.

The manufacturer is intimating that the foam helps make their cars
quieter. I have no idea whether the foam in the windshield pillars
actually makes any difference at all unless someone's banging on it
with a hammer, but if it makes people THINK there might be an
advantage, it could sell cars.

Which is full-circle pretty much back to where we started on this
thread (function vs. marketing).


Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>dvt wrote:
>>>>>>jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>for instance, 6/4 [Ti] is superior to 3/2.5 because it has a higher
>>>>>>>modulus. that also means higher strength to weight ratio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't understand the cause/effect relationship between higher modulus
>>>>>>and higher strength/weight. Can you elaborate?
>>>>>
>>>>>yes, could be phrased better. will get back to you tonight - off to work.
>>>>
>>>>Happy googling. Jose did a fine job of answering for me (thanks,
>>>>Jose), so I won't waste the electrons.
>>>
>>>you were the kid in the schoolyard that would call names but wouldn't
>>>fight. and not smart enough to know when to keep quiet.
>>
>> Hey, you were the one who had to run away and try to backpedal
>
>backpedal? on strength of reinforced structures? the strength of a
>structure cannot exceed that of the individual components, and i stand
>by that statement.

Never heard that a chain is no stronger than its weakest link before -
thanks... zzzzzzzz.

> you otoh had nothing to contribute to that debate.

Apparently not, since it has nothing to do with the thread it's
attached to.

>and i'm still awaiting a mathematical explanation for a structure as a
>whole.

As a whole what? We were talking about the relative merits of
3Al/2.5V ti vs. 6Al/4V before you botched the explanation and got
called out on it by Frank and Jose.

Lemme guess - you found a website that goes on about a structure made
from various titanium alloys and are trying to figure out a way to
slip it into this thread....

> as i presume it's not forthcoming from you or krygowski, i'm
>taking myself off to the library this holiday. feel free to beat me to
>it and post something useful. [sic]

Uhhhh, that IS how you spell "useful".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

>dvt wrote:

>> I assume you direct your "incorrect data" comment at Habanero. Looking
>> at http://habcycles.com/techstuf.html#tubes, I don't see any mention of
>> workability and weldability. Are you referring to something else?
>
>for weldability:
>"The problem is that the weld reduces the strength and resilience of the
>tube." if a seamed tube is weak, how can the frame be joined?
>especially where thicker butted wall thickness is not employed.

If a seamed tube is as good as an extruded tube, why would anyone even
go to the trouble of making extruded tubes?

>for workability, it's been updated. it now reads:
>"/Until recently/, 6/4 bike frames were all made from seamed tubing".
>[my emphasis.] before, reynolds and others' production of seamless
>drawn 6/4 was apparently unknown to hickey.

It's been updated all right (a few years ago). If I didn't know about
seamless tubing, one has to ask why I mentioned that they are no
longer all made from seamed tubing. What options are there other than
"seamed" and "seamless"? Solid rod?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Jose Rizal]

jim beam wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> dvt wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand the cause/effect relationship between higher
>>> modulus and higher strength/weight. Can you elaborate?
>>>
>> yes, could be phrased better. will get back to you tonight - off to
>> work.
>
>
> ok, as far as structures like frames are concerned, stiffness is vital,
> hence the interest in modulus. as far as our kind of 6/4 alloys are
> concerned, they also happen to have a higher yield and uts than 3/2.5.
> as you question, those are not necessarily related, but as a comparison
> between these two alloy classes, they happen to go hand in hand.

Nonsense. Modulus of elasticity has NOTHING to do with strength to
weight ratio, which, again for your benefit, is simply the relationship
between density and tensile strength. No getting out of that one.

> the
> fact that our 6/4 has higher modulus and more importantly, specific
> modulus, happens to be a huge advantage - not something that can be
> dismissed with incorrect data about workability & weldability.

Nonsense yet again. Specific modulus does not give ANY indication of
strength to weight ratio. Go ahead and provide proof that 6/4 Ti is as
easily cold worked, as easily made into seamless tubes, and as easily
weldable as 3/2.5. Any materials data sheet from a recognised
organisation will do.

While you're at it, might as well explain why this titanium manufacturer
(http://titanex.com/tigrades/) states:

6/4 Ti
Weldability Excellent

3/2.5 Ti
Weldability Fair

> for a potted summary, check:
>
> http://www.reynoldscycles.co.uk/compproperties.html

Yes, quite a comprehensive resource with much detailed technical
information on fabrication and absolutely no marketing slant at all.

Not.

 

[Jose Rizal]

jim beam wrote:
> Jose Rizal wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> you assert a number of b.s. things about ti on your site. and it's
>>> because you don't know what you're talking about. for instance, 6/4
>>> is superior to 3/2.5 because it has a higher modulus. that also
>>> means higher strength to weight ratio.
>>
>> You need to lay off the grog and keep the bs to yourself. Modulus has
>> nothing to do with strength to weight ratio, and running away isn't
>> going to help you on that. strength to weight is calculated simply
>> from density and tensile strength of the material. In fact, 3/2.5
>> has a higher elongation at break than 6/4. Besides, strength to
>> weight is not the only criterion for using particular Ti alloys: ease
>> of welding and cold forming are also important, and in these 3/2.5 is
>> better than 6/4.
>
>
> [yawn.] see my response to dave.

I did, and I again laughed, then pointed out where and how wrong you are.

>>> this is quite an extraordinary thing in materials, yet you dismiss it
>>> with some b.s. red herring about welded sheet vs. tube - which is
>>> entirely unrelated.
>>
>> You dismiss it, not Mark. You obviously have no manufacturing
>> knowledge whatsoever, yet you spout off things you read in pop
>> magazines on material properties and pass yourself off as an expert.
>
>
> jose, you can say whatever you want. i really don't care. just try to
> get your facts straight.

Sure you care, alcoholic one. However, I see you have no comeback to
that one.

>>> and the most telling thing is when dan offers to set you on track
>>> with some definitive data in all your misery, and what do you do?
>>> bleat a bunch of pathetic whiny excuses for not doing it. in other
>>> words, /you have no interest/ in the science of this stuff - you're
>>> just here for the "fun". after all, what can be more "fun" than
>>> b.s.ing from a position of ignorance and taunting the people that
>>> actually now, bother or care?
>>
>> Insults only work if they have substance.
>
>
> insult? if you think that's insulting, there's something wrong with you.

Well, if you think calling someone "whiny", "b.s.ing", and "ignorant" is
not insulting, I guess your neglectful mother did not bother to teach
you any social customs whatsoever. Perhaps this is the root cause of
your alcohol addiction?

>> Your half-baked technical posturing and consistent name-calling of
>> those who shoot down your falsities exposes you for what you have
>> always been: a poser. Is the pay-off you get really worth it?
>
> what's my payoff jose? am i selling you anything?

Yes. You're selling me and everybody else here your ignorance and
half-baked technical posturing.

> get with the
> killfile if you don't like it - it's /real/ simple!

Oh, no no no. Not that easy for you, alcoholic one. I'm here to point
out your posturings, and your lack of technical understanding of even a
fraction of what you bleat on about. I'm on your back, alcoholic one,
and I'll call you out each and everytime you spout your bs.