Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 07:26 In article <v76dnSNVabJ4h8vYnZ2dnUVZ8v2dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej4hah$8ss_014(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <45537045.AC5FCFC6(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>> Something approaching 20% of the people in our country can't afford any >> sort >>>> of health care. To say that "ain't broke" is one of the most morally >> bereft >>>> statements I've heard in a very, very long time. Congratulations, >>>> you've >>>> demonstrated the lack of a conscience along with a lack of a brain. >>> >>>BAH may not be aware that it was a social conscience that drove Britain to >> look >>>at the possibility of a National Health Service. >> >> Britain is a single country and has a "small" acreage. The US >> is 50 "countries" span a quarter hemisphere. > >So what? You people honestly can't see the difference? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 07:28 In article <olH4h.11583$B31.8703(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"George O. Bizzigotti" <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote in message >news:u6d6l2d5vbhkvqoiqarfqkeq05rr4uvl4r(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 08 Nov 06 13:03:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >A junior chemical engineer is much less likely to come up >> with something revolutionary (working in a 100+ year-old field versus >> a much younger field), whereas the downside risk is wasting $billions >> on construction of a faulty design and the lives of the workers if >> uncaught faults compromise safety. > >This latter risk of lives *cannot* be overstated. It is *the* primary risk, >and chemical plants are extremely complex beasts. It takes a huge amount of >experience to see all of the "gotchas", where condition A combines with >condition B which combines with conditions C, D, E and F, to cause the plant >to blow up. And add to this the fact that most of those conditions are a >result of out-of-spec operation (operator error, out-of-spec starting >material, etc.) or other unanticpated events. Ya gotta think of *all* of >them...and then think of some more...and only a person who has participated >in many, many plant designs would have internalized how important that is, >well enough to lead the next plant design project. So how do you transmit your knowledge to others so your knowledge of what not to do doesn't get lost? Is your biz based on mentorship, too? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 07:32 In article <EtH4h.11585$B31.9018(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >news:olH4h.11583$B31.8703(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... >> >> "George O. Bizzigotti" <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote in message >> news:u6d6l2d5vbhkvqoiqarfqkeq05rr4uvl4r(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 08 Nov 06 13:03:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> A junior chemical engineer is much less likely to come up >>> with something revolutionary (working in a 100+ year-old field versus >>> a much younger field), whereas the downside risk is wasting $billions >>> on construction of a faulty design and the lives of the workers if >>> uncaught faults compromise safety. >> >> This latter risk of lives *cannot* be overstated. It is *the* primary >> risk, and chemical plants are extremely complex beasts. It takes a huge >> amount of experience to see all of the "gotchas", where condition A >> combines with condition B which combines with conditions C, D, E and F, to >> cause the plant to blow up. And add to this the fact that most of those >> conditions are a result of out-of-spec operation (operator error, >> out-of-spec starting material, etc.) or other unanticpated events. Ya >> gotta think of *all* of them...and then think of some more...and only a >> person who has participated in many, many plant designs would have >> internalized how important that is, well enough to lead the next plant >> design project. > >I hate to reply to my own post, but I hit send before I had said all I >wanted to say. > >Even a very simple chemical process typically has 20 or more control >variables. Each of these has a normal operating range (control theory Finally, a magic incantation. Thank you. >places limits on how tightly you should normally control these variables, >based on their ability to drift with time, and on the response time of the >system and the various instruments that measure the control variables). The >process design team has the enormously complex task of mapping out this >region in 20-dimensional space, and exploring all parts of the "normal >operating regime" (mostly by computer simulations before plant construction) How did your simulation software learn? Did the code evolve over the years and the chem industry have a package like engineering had CADCAM? >to make sure that there are no gotchas in that region. Then they need to go >outside of that space, to see if there are any nearby gotchas in the even >that 1, 2, 3 or all 20 of those variables go out of spec at once. Does this simulation need a Cray equivalent of CPU cycles? If you use PCs these days, how long (wallclock time) does a run take? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months? > >And this is all as regards a very simple chemical process, with no unusual >hazards. Add complexity, hazards (corrosion, high toxicity, explosivity, >etc.), and it's orders of magnitude more difficult. I understand that. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 07:39 In article <y5m5h.2407$6t.1030(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ej4jv8$8ss_027(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <Pwe5h.8473$9v5.327(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:3070a$45554ce3$4fe71df$2923(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>> Ben Newsam wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:02:02 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>He also doesn't seem to mind a large part of that going to >>>>>>pay medical care for random strangers including those who >>>>>>are getting medical care for their ongoing smoking and drug >>>>>>addiction. >>>> >>>>> Do you seriously believe that your insurance premiums are used only to >>>>> fund *your* medical needs? >>>> >>>> Since you asked. >>>> >>>> My insurance premiums are insufficient to cover my >>>> medical expenses. I am at a slight loss in the >>>> medicine coverage if I use Canadian pricing as >>>> the basis, but way ahead if I use USA prices. I >>>> pay for the coverage because it is quite likely >>>> I'll need more as I age and there's a penalty if >>>> one doesn't sign on when it becomes available to >>>> them. >>>> >>>> Now reread what I wrote and take the narrow meaning: >>>> "He (add emphasis to that word) also doesn't seem >>>> to mind...." >>>> >>>> For the most part private US insurance severely >>>> limits benefits available for addictions and mental >>>> health issues. I can pretty much guarantee that we >>>> won't do lung translants for folks still smoking. >>> >>>A lung transplant would be cheap compared to what they *do* do for smokers >>>(ex *and* current). Lifelon treatments for emphysema. Years and years of >>>cancer treatments, including expensive chemo and radiation treatments, >>>which >>>morph into more and more expensive as the patient very slowly dies. >>>Expensive treatments for the heart disease caused by smoking, including >>>bypass surgery, heart transplants, and other forms of open-heart surgery. >> >> Those services were already paid for by the tax. > >What the hell are you on about? 1) We were talking private insurance, 2) >If that is *already* paid for by tax, then I guess the horror that the >unsettled/BAH creature was trying to create at the thought of tax money >paying for treatment of the unwashed masses of smokers, was all just >meaningless bluster, since by its own admission, it already happens under >the US system. > > >> In Mass., all that >> lovely money, not only has been spent twice, it's been borrowed against >> (I think) two times. > >Yeah, we all know how corrupt Massachusetts is--why do you imply that that >corruption will happen with a nationalized health care system. Because it already is happening with the Medicare and Medicaid system. Why should I believe that passing a single-payer law will stop all of the cheating? Why should I believe that the paid services now denied to my folks will suddenly become available with the passage of a single-payer law? In fact, I know there will be more services not covered and a lot more cheating done with a single-payer system. > If we've >learned one thing from the Big Dig, it's "don't let Massachusetts handle any >more big projects, and certainly don't let them administer a national health >care system." You have no choice. Every state administers the Medicare and Medicaid systems. What makes you think that this will not happen if a single-payer law is passed by Congress? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 07:40
In article <4555F0FA.3C4FF876(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> I am at a slight loss in the >> medicine coverage if I use Canadian pricing as >> the basis, but way ahead if I use USA prices. > >Why are the same medicines more expensive in the USA ? We pay the development costs. /BAH |