Lecture – Tribology in Horology

[Richard Simpson]

On Richard Simpson Said:

Frequently multiple definitions and confusion are created over time by those who refuse to accept that they may occasionally be wrong.

Dave, you are wrong, I have explained why, you refuse to accept it, hiding behind perceived multiple definitions doesn’t change anything, I have moved on.

Richard, you’ve missed the point.  There’s no basis for argument because the answer depends on two definitions.  It’s an impasse; we are both “not wrong” because our positions are a mirror:

• You conclude I’m wrong because you believe there is only one correct definition, and I refuse to accept it.
• I say there are two, and you refuse to accept that.

Fortunately the difference is pedantic.  In my experience cavitation is used to mean what you call cavitation erosion.

Cavitation erosion is definitely destructive to propellers, but – though it was once widely believed, as google still confirms, not destructive to human joints.   As the forum doesn’t have a knuckle popping problem, no one cares!  It does not affect the price of fish.

Word of warning though – believing terminology is strictly black and white as individuals understand it is unwise.  I once spent two painful days arguing what the word ‘all’ meant in a contract.  My position was, the customer being a global operator, ‘all locations’ meant ‘world-wide’.   The supplier asserted that it meant ‘all UK locations’.  Rather than go to law we compromised.   ‘All locations’ meant UK, Germany, USA, Australia, but not Canada, South America, Africa, or the Middle and Far East apart from Hong Kong.  Both parties accepted the impasse and agreed to share the costs 50:50.   I suggest we do the same.  (Easy because there aren’t any!)

The folk who agreed the contract were admonished and told to be clear next time.  Customer and supplier had both assumed ‘all’ had the same definition, and that was their mistake.  The same issue often occurs in engineering specifications, at least where I come from.

You will find if you care to wade through them that I often admit fault in posts. I believe in getting the facts right.  Not in this case, because there are two definitions.

🙂

Dave

[SillyOldDuffer]

On SillyOldDuffer Said:

On Richard Simpson Said:

Frequently multiple definitions and confusion are created over time by those who refuse to accept that they may occasionally be wrong.

Dave, you are wrong, I have explained why, you refuse to accept it, hiding behind perceived multiple definitions doesn’t change anything, I have moved on.

Richard, you’ve missed the point.  There’s no basis for argument because the answer depends on two definitions.  It’s an impasse; we are both “not wrong” because our positions are a mirror:

• You conclude I’m wrong because you believe there is only one correct definition, and I refuse to accept it.
• I say there are two, and you refuse to accept that.

Fortunately the difference is pedantic.  In my experience cavitation is used to mean what you call cavitation erosion.

Cavitation erosion is definitely destructive to propellers, but – though it was once widely believed, as google still confirms, not destructive to human joints.   As the forum doesn’t have a knuckle popping problem, no one cares!  It does not affect the price of fish.

Word of warning though – believing terminology is strictly black and white as individuals understand it is unwise.  I once spent two painful days arguing what the word ‘all’ meant in a contract.  My position was, the customer being a global operator, ‘all locations’ meant ‘world-wide’.   The supplier asserted that it meant ‘all UK locations’.  Rather than go to law we compromised.   ‘All locations’ meant UK, Germany, USA, Australia, but not Canada, South America, Africa, or the Middle and Far East apart from Hong Kong.  Both parties accepted the impasse and agreed to share the costs 50:50.   I suggest we do the same.  (Easy because there aren’t any!)

The folk who agreed the contract were admonished and told to be clear next time.  Customer and supplier had both assumed ‘all’ had the same definition, and that was their mistake.  The same issue often occurs in engineering specifications, at least where I come from.

You will find if you care to wade through them that I often admit fault in posts. I believe in getting the facts right.  Not in this case, because there are two definitions.

🙂

Dave

Can you provide a link to any authoritative definition of cavitation that says it refers to the damage caused by the imploding gas bubbles?

Every definition in every dictionary and technical source I can find says cavitation refers only  to the formation and implosion of gas bubbles in liquid due to pressure changes.

 

 

 

 

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Thanks again to Gerry for the ‘lead’

The presentation was interesting enough, but far less technical than I expected.

No mention of Propellors or Knuckles 🙂

… but also precious little about Tribology !

MichaelG.

.

This graphic is probably the most relevant frame from the whole presentation:

[gerry maddenParticipant @gerrymadden53711]

Well… judging by the comments, much of the audience seemed to think that was a great presentation.

Not sure I can agree with that sentiment. He was halfway through before he deviated at all from history. After that he just mentioned a few pertinent words and completely dodged on detail.

Maybe far too young to be a professor ?!?

Gerry

[gerry maddenParticipant @gerrymadden53711]

Michael… Im almost embarrassed now that I highlighted it!  We could have a better tribological discussion on this forum any day of the week.

 

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Looks like attendance was a useful ‘toe in the door’ … I’ve received an eMail invitation to register for something more substantial on 03-Dec

MichaelG.

[Author]

Posts