elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 yea
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
John Fields Loves Bill Sl
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:16 pm
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 06:51:29 -0600, John Fields
<jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 17:30:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:51 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:06:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:54 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:52:56 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
He'd like to think that I'm an idiot, in that same way that you'd like
to think that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Well, if that's the case, then we're _both_ right.
You'd both like to think so, which is about as close to "right" as you
ever get.
Nonplussed, eh?
If you knew what "nonplussed" actually meant, you'd be aware that it
implied a state where I was bewildered and didn't know what to say.
---
Precisely what I meant, since your: 'You'd both like to think so, which
is about as close to "right" as you ever get.' is the sort of IKYABWAI
you always throw out when you've been flummoxed and can't think of some
clever retort.
---
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonplussed
Since you are responding to what I did find to say, this just
emphasises your linguistic incompetence.
---
Go back and read through it a few more times and you may (now that
you've been given a clue) see that what I was responding to was what you
_didn't_ have to say.
---
Pity about that. The universe is a cruel hard place, and your
favourite illusions can't conceal the fact that you are both
regretably under-educated.
One with an adequate education shouldn't have to be told that
"regretably" is correctly spelled: 'regrettably'.
Education is no protection against the occasional typo.
True, but one would think it should certainly stave off the flood...
In Texas, an occasional raindrop can be described as a flood. Texans
don't know any better.
---
Well, we certainly know the difference between a single raindrop and
perpetual rainfall.
JF
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:51 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:06:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:54 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:52:56 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
He'd like to think that I'm an idiot, in that same way that you'd like
to think that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Well, if that's the case, then we're _both_ right.
You'd both like to think so, which is about as close to "right" as you
ever get.
Nonplussed, eh?
If you knew what "nonplussed" actually meant, you'd be aware that it
implied a state where I was bewildered and didn't know what to say.
---
Precisely what I meant, since your: 'You'd both like to think so, which
is about as close to "right" as you ever get.' is the sort of IKYABWAI
you always throw out when you've been flummoxed and can't think of some
clever retort.
---
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonplussed
Since you are responding to what I did find to say, this just
emphasises your linguistic incompetence.
---
Go back and read through it a few more times and you may (now that
you've been given a clue) see that what I was responding to was what you
_didn't_ have to say.
---
Pity about that. The universe is a cruel hard place, and your
favourite illusions can't conceal the fact that you are both
regretably under-educated.
One with an adequate education shouldn't have to be told that
"regretably" is correctly spelled: 'regrettably'.
Education is no protection against the occasional typo.
True, but one would think it should certainly stave off the flood...
In Texas, an occasional raindrop can be described as a flood. Texans
don't know any better.
---
Well, we certainly know the difference between a single raindrop and
perpetual rainfall.
JF
--
Sub Fairies Kissing Up to the Chief Fairy
MooseFET
Guest
Guest
Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:34 pm
On Feb 6, 10:22 am, Martin Montonion
<Monton...@expires-28-02-2010.news-group.org> wrote:
Quote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that
Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
It is doing exactly what its operators want it to do, demonstrating
that all the sub-systems are doing what they are supposed to when
operating under a substantial proportion of the design load
It isn't doing what the theoritical phsycists would like it to do,
which is to start working at its design energy right now, but happily
the slow and cautious brigade have got their wish.
The real disaster is waiting to happen - no new physics at all even at
full power. Can you imagine what the next request for an even more
powerful and more expensive machine will sound like after that?
Why do you call this a disaster ? It's the normal scientific process.
You have a theory that something cool will happen when you try X, so you
make an experiment. If what you expected does not happen then you know
that your theory was wrong, that is, you gained some new knowledge -
it's no disaster !
Whether (or better: when) a new more powerful machine will be built is a
political decision.
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that
Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
It is doing exactly what its operators want it to do, demonstrating
that all the sub-systems are doing what they are supposed to when
operating under a substantial proportion of the design load
It isn't doing what the theoritical phsycists would like it to do,
which is to start working at its design energy right now, but happily
the slow and cautious brigade have got their wish.
The real disaster is waiting to happen - no new physics at all even at
full power. Can you imagine what the next request for an even more
powerful and more expensive machine will sound like after that?
Why do you call this a disaster ? It's the normal scientific process.
You have a theory that something cool will happen when you try X, so you
make an experiment. If what you expected does not happen then you know
that your theory was wrong, that is, you gained some new knowledge -
it's no disaster !
Whether (or better: when) a new more powerful machine will be built is a
political decision.
Experiments that produce the expected are less useful than ones that
don't.
One that works as expected only shows that you were right. One that
doesn't
shows both that your calculation was wrong and the right answer.
Quote:
--
Cool links for aspiring physicists, from a Nobel laureate:http://www.phys..uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:33 pm
On Feb 7, 3:40 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:28:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:22 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:36:22 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
huh?
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:22 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:36:22 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
huh?
Another example of inadequate linguistic comprehension ...
Quote:
you may indeed find it difficult to generalise from the problems that
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
run into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
Not at all, since I've sired five biological children, delivered one of
them at home, and can easily relate to watching and helping them learn
and grow, much like I can with the non-biological children I've sired.
If you could understand what was written, you would have understood
the the problem wasn't understanding the problems that infants present
to their parents (which you may well understand) but the problems that
come up when engineers run into when commissioning a new and
complicated piece of equipment, which you clearly don't.
Au contraire!
The problems involved in commissioning new and complicated pieces of
equipment are clearly analogous to the problems involved in bringing up
children and turning them into fully functional adult humans but, having
no children of your own, how would you know?
And you?
I've had to learn about unfants' problem vicariously from friends and
relatives - I've got eight nieces and nephews, and four grand-nieces
and -nephews, so I've heard quite a lot about the subject.
Oh, please...
Even someone as pig-headed as you are must realize that hearing about it
isn't the same as being there.
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
run into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
Not at all, since I've sired five biological children, delivered one of
them at home, and can easily relate to watching and helping them learn
and grow, much like I can with the non-biological children I've sired.
If you could understand what was written, you would have understood
the the problem wasn't understanding the problems that infants present
to their parents (which you may well understand) but the problems that
come up when engineers run into when commissioning a new and
complicated piece of equipment, which you clearly don't.
Au contraire!
The problems involved in commissioning new and complicated pieces of
equipment are clearly analogous to the problems involved in bringing up
children and turning them into fully functional adult humans but, having
no children of your own, how would you know?
And you?
I've had to learn about unfants' problem vicariously from friends and
relatives - I've got eight nieces and nephews, and four grand-nieces
and -nephews, so I've heard quite a lot about the subject.
Oh, please...
Even someone as pig-headed as you are must realize that hearing about it
isn't the same as being there.
Even someone as stupid as you ought to realise that we are talking
about problems of getting large and complicated projects up and
running, and my lack of hands-on expereience with children is
irrelevant, while your lack of experience with large and complicated
projects does help to explain the nonsense that you post.
Quote:
but linguistically competent adults don't usually find this particular
generalisation to be beyond them.
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "generalisation" when
they mean "generalization".
Cheater...
generalisation to be beyond them.
Linguistically competent adults don't usually say "generalisation" when
they mean "generalization".
Cheater...
True, but precisely analogous to your boasting about your physical
fecundity, where your intellectual sterility was the subject of the
discussion.
<snipped the evidence that John Fields isn't quite as stupid as I'd
hoped>
Quote:
on two levels.
The first is that, unless you're claiming that the failure was planned,
your statement is outrageously false, and the second is that "Large
Hadron Collider" should be preceded by "the".
If you had enough grasp of English to appreciate the fact that a claim
that "the Large Hadron Colider isn't working right" applied to the
present, rather than than the past, you might be in a position to
quibble about typos.
---
Since the LHC failed to stop "working right" in the past and hasn't, so
far, been made capable of "working right" in the present, your argument
is specious.
It's working fine - at 3.5 TeV - at the moment. The operators plan to
let it run at that level for a while before starting to crank it up to
the design level of 7 TeV.
Wise move, but "working fine" at 3.5 TeV isn't quite the same as working
properly at 7 TeV.
There's nothing wrong with working at 3.5 TeV.
Other than the fact that it was designed to work at 7 TeV and blew up
last time it tried to get there, you're right on the money.
The first is that, unless you're claiming that the failure was planned,
your statement is outrageously false, and the second is that "Large
Hadron Collider" should be preceded by "the".
If you had enough grasp of English to appreciate the fact that a claim
that "the Large Hadron Colider isn't working right" applied to the
present, rather than than the past, you might be in a position to
quibble about typos.
---
Since the LHC failed to stop "working right" in the past and hasn't, so
far, been made capable of "working right" in the present, your argument
is specious.
It's working fine - at 3.5 TeV - at the moment. The operators plan to
let it run at that level for a while before starting to crank it up to
the design level of 7 TeV.
Wise move, but "working fine" at 3.5 TeV isn't quite the same as working
properly at 7 TeV.
There's nothing wrong with working at 3.5 TeV.
Other than the fact that it was designed to work at 7 TeV and blew up
last time it tried to get there, you're right on the money.
It was designed to work at 7 TeV and will presumably get there in the
end. The magnet that quenched last year - and did all the damage -
apparently quenched at a lower field than would be required for 7 TeV
operation, which was unexpected.
Quote:
At least 49 of the super-conductiong magnets are going to have to
be "retrained" so that they will remain super-conducting when
generating the magnetic fields appropriate to 7 TeV - they were got
there once (ar manufacture), but apparently the wiring has forgotten
its "training" and will have to worked up to its design levels again.
---
Hmmm...
Since having to "retrain" the unruly magnets wasn't part of the initial
scheme, then the machine (although able to limp along at 3.5 TeV) is
still broken.
be "retrained" so that they will remain super-conducting when
generating the magnetic fields appropriate to 7 TeV - they were got
there once (ar manufacture), but apparently the wiring has forgotten
its "training" and will have to worked up to its design levels again.
---
Hmmm...
Since having to "retrain" the unruly magnets wasn't part of the initial
scheme, then the machine (although able to limp along at 3.5 TeV) is
still broken.
It is an unexpected problem. Big and complicated projects usually
manage to produce a few of them - my younger brother once said that
his policy was to anticipate all the problem he could think of so that
when the problems that he didn't expect showed up he'd have time to
solve them.
It worked on the London Bridge Station rebuilding job in London in the
early 1970's, and it has cvertainly worked for me since then.
Quote:
this is going to take a while. and the operators want to get some
physics out of what they have got before making the next step.
---
Uh, yeah, it's still broke, but we can get some use out of it until it's
fixed...
physics out of what they have got before making the next step.
---
Uh, yeah, it's still broke, but we can get some use out of it until it's
fixed...
It's not broken, it is still being worked up.
Quote:
Sounds like spin control to me.
It isn't. What you and Jan Panteltje are pushing is negative spin -
trying to pretend a big and complicated project can hit its design
objectives as soon as the power is turned on. This is the kind of
unrealistic rubbish that politicians do like to push to try make a
political point, but you two seem to be sincerely stupid.
Quote:
It's a big and complicated system which is now doing almost everything
that it was designed to do, and in that sense it is "working right".
Sorry, Charlie, but much like an ocean liner designed to get to 30 knots
yet can only get to 15 knots during sea trials, it won't be working
right until it reaches its stated design goals.
that it was designed to do, and in that sense it is "working right".
Sorry, Charlie, but much like an ocean liner designed to get to 30 knots
yet can only get to 15 knots during sea trials, it won't be working
right until it reaches its stated design goals.
The "sea trials" aren't finished yet, and won't be finished until all
the offending magnets are retrained.
Quote:
It hasn't yet got to the design target of 7 TeV, but the route is
clear, and the operators have a perfect right to decide how fast they
will move along it.
I'm sure the route was clear last time too...
clear, and the operators have a perfect right to decide how fast they
will move along it.
I'm sure the route was clear last time too...
Super-conducting magents that unexpectedly quench below the currents
that they were trained to carry are the kind of unexpected event that
requires some re-routing. One hopes that the machine doesn't have
other unexpected features - it can be a painful way of discovering new
physics.
Quote:
It's your argument that is specious, based as it is on your own
restricted experience with rather less complicated and demanding
projects.
Hey, asshole, I'm not the one claiming the LHC is "working fine", am I?
restricted experience with rather less complicated and demanding
projects.
Hey, asshole, I'm not the one claiming the LHC is "working fine", am I?
I had noticed. You are the one that is advancing the specious claim
that its teething troubles represent some kind of evidence of
incompetence, slandering a bunch of engineers and physicists whose
competence you can only envy.
One can only wonder why? Perhaps you were part of the "pork" in the
Texan super-conducting collider project, and formed part of the
evidence that prompted your congress to pull the plug on that
particular project, which would explain why you want to write off the
CERN project as a failure, rather than seeing it as the success that a
more competent US competitor might have achieved.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Jeroen Belleman
Guest
Guest
Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:45 pm
Bill Sloman wrote:
Quote:
[...]
It was designed to work at 7 TeV and will presumably get there in the
end. The magnet that quenched last year - and did all the damage -
apparently quenched at a lower field than would be required for 7 TeV
operation, which was unexpected.
It was designed to work at 7 TeV and will presumably get there in the
end. The magnet that quenched last year - and did all the damage -
apparently quenched at a lower field than would be required for 7 TeV
operation, which was unexpected.
The magnets are designed to take quenches without damage. Last
year's event was caused by a failing connection between two magnets.
As anyone here will know, trying to brutally interrupt the current
in an inductor will make sparks. There is a lot of stored energy in
a magnet. About 7 MJ at the nominal current of 11.8 kA. That's as
much as three sticks of dynamite, if I may believe Wikipedia!
Over the past year, much effort has been put into verifying these
connections and adding & improving diagnostic equipment to keep an
eye on them. The resistance of the interconnections must be kept
below 0.6 nOhms at a temperature of 1.9 K!
For those who are curious about the technical details of the machine,
you may try to have a look at the design report at:
<http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/LHC-DesignReport.html>
The magnets are described in chapter 7.
Quote:
Super-conducting magents that unexpectedly quench below the currents
that they were trained to carry are the kind of unexpected event that
requires some re-routing.
that they were trained to carry are the kind of unexpected event that
requires some re-routing.
It'll get to 7 TeV, eventually, no doubt. That is not to say there
won't be a few more hurdles along the way.
Jeroen Belleman
John Fields
Guest
Guest
Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:49 pm
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 03:33:45 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman_at_ieee.org> wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 7, 3:40 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:28:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:22 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:36:22 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
huh? ;)
Another example of inadequate linguistic comprehension ...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:28:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:22 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:36:22 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
huh? ;)
Another example of inadequate linguistic comprehension ...
---
Missed the smiley, eh?
---
Quote:
you may indeed find it difficult to generalise from the problems that
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
run into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
Not at all, since I've sired five biological children, delivered one of
them at home, and can easily relate to watching and helping them learn
and grow, much like I can with the non-biological children I've sired.
If you could understand what was written, you would have understood
the the problem wasn't understanding the problems that infants present
to their parents (which you may well understand) but the problems that
come up when engineers run into when commissioning a new and
complicated piece of equipment, which you clearly don't.
Au contraire!
The problems involved in commissioning new and complicated pieces of
equipment are clearly analogous to the problems involved in bringing up
children and turning them into fully functional adult humans but, having
no children of your own, how would you know?
And you?
I've had to learn about unfants' problem vicariously from friends and
relatives - I've got eight nieces and nephews, and four grand-nieces
and -nephews, so I've heard quite a lot about the subject.
Oh, please...
Even someone as pig-headed as you are must realize that hearing about it
isn't the same as being there.
Even someone as stupid as you ought to realise that we are talking
about problems of getting large and complicated projects up and
running,
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
run into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
Not at all, since I've sired five biological children, delivered one of
them at home, and can easily relate to watching and helping them learn
and grow, much like I can with the non-biological children I've sired.
If you could understand what was written, you would have understood
the the problem wasn't understanding the problems that infants present
to their parents (which you may well understand) but the problems that
come up when engineers run into when commissioning a new and
complicated piece of equipment, which you clearly don't.
Au contraire!
The problems involved in commissioning new and complicated pieces of
equipment are clearly analogous to the problems involved in bringing up
children and turning them into fully functional adult humans but, having
no children of your own, how would you know?
And you?
I've had to learn about unfants' problem vicariously from friends and
relatives - I've got eight nieces and nephews, and four grand-nieces
and -nephews, so I've heard quite a lot about the subject.
Oh, please...
Even someone as pig-headed as you are must realize that hearing about it
isn't the same as being there.
Even someone as stupid as you ought to realise that we are talking
about problems of getting large and complicated projects up and
running,
---
For someone with the sagacity which you claim to possess, it shouldn't
be much of a stretch to see that there's a valid analogy between getting
a baby human up and running, which is a large and complicated project
from infancy to adulthood, and getting a complex mechanical system, also
a large and complicated project, from drawing board to fully functional
system.
---
Quote:
and my lack of hands-on expereience with children is
irrelevant, while your lack of experience with large and complicated
projects does help to explain the nonsense that you post.
irrelevant, while your lack of experience with large and complicated
projects does help to explain the nonsense that you post.
---
Ah, I see...
The problem seems to be that you can't deal with analogy.
---
Quote:
Cheater...
True, but precisely analogous to your boasting about your physical
fecundity, where your intellectual sterility was the subject of the
discussion.
True, but precisely analogous to your boasting about your physical
fecundity, where your intellectual sterility was the subject of the
discussion.
---
Not at all, since I wasn't boasting, just using an analogy to prove your
claim false.
---
Quote:
snipped the evidence that John Fields isn't quite as stupid as I'd
hoped
hoped
---
Sorry if I don't quite meet your expectations but, in that vein, I must
say you've exceeded mine!
---
Quote:
There's nothing wrong with working at 3.5 TeV.
Other than the fact that it was designed to work at 7 TeV and blew up
last time it tried to get there, you're right on the money.
It was designed to work at 7 TeV and will presumably get there in the
end. The magnet that quenched last year - and did all the damage -
apparently quenched at a lower field than would be required for 7 TeV
operation, which was unexpected.
Other than the fact that it was designed to work at 7 TeV and blew up
last time it tried to get there, you're right on the money.
It was designed to work at 7 TeV and will presumably get there in the
end. The magnet that quenched last year - and did all the damage -
apparently quenched at a lower field than would be required for 7 TeV
operation, which was unexpected.
---
Really?
A remarkable grasp of the obvious, indeed!
---
Quote:
At least 49 of the super-conductiong magnets are going to have to
be "retrained" so that they will remain super-conducting when
generating the magnetic fields appropriate to 7 TeV - they were got
there once (ar manufacture), but apparently the wiring has forgotten
its "training" and will have to worked up to its design levels again.
---
Hmmm...
Since having to "retrain" the unruly magnets wasn't part of the initial
scheme, then the machine (although able to limp along at 3.5 TeV) is
still broken.
It is an unexpected problem. Big and complicated projects usually
manage to produce a few of them - my younger brother once said that
his policy was to anticipate all the problem he could think of so that
when the problems that he didn't expect showed up he'd have time to
solve them.
be "retrained" so that they will remain super-conducting when
generating the magnetic fields appropriate to 7 TeV - they were got
there once (ar manufacture), but apparently the wiring has forgotten
its "training" and will have to worked up to its design levels again.
---
Hmmm...
Since having to "retrain" the unruly magnets wasn't part of the initial
scheme, then the machine (although able to limp along at 3.5 TeV) is
still broken.
It is an unexpected problem. Big and complicated projects usually
manage to produce a few of them - my younger brother once said that
his policy was to anticipate all the problem he could think of so that
when the problems that he didn't expect showed up he'd have time to
solve them.
---
Another genius...
---
Quote:
It worked on the London Bridge Station rebuilding job in London in the
early 1970's, and it has cvertainly worked for me since then.
early 1970's, and it has cvertainly worked for me since then.
---
Wake up call, Billy, that's how we _all_ do it.
---
Quote:
this is going to take a while. and the operators want to get some
physics out of what they have got before making the next step.
---
Uh, yeah, it's still broke, but we can get some use out of it until it's
fixed...
It's not broken, it is still being worked up.
physics out of what they have got before making the next step.
---
Uh, yeah, it's still broke, but we can get some use out of it until it's
fixed...
It's not broken, it is still being worked up.
---
If the plan was to get it up to 7 TeV the first time and it blew up
before it got there, then it broke and it's now being repaired.
If/when it gets to 7 TeV, _then_ it'll be working as advertised, not
limping along like it is now.
---
Quote:
Sounds like spin control to me.
It isn't. What you and Jan Panteltje are pushing is negative spin -
trying to pretend a big and complicated project can hit its design
objectives as soon as the power is turned on.
It isn't. What you and Jan Panteltje are pushing is negative spin -
trying to pretend a big and complicated project can hit its design
objectives as soon as the power is turned on.
---
Well, it _has_ happened more than once, you know, so it's not quite as
impossible to do as you put on.
That kind of an attitude, though, leads one to wonder about how many
preventable errors were foisted on your previous employers by your lack
of foresight.
---
Quote:
This is the kind of
unrealistic rubbish that politicians do like to push to try make a
political point, but you two seem to be sincerely stupid.
unrealistic rubbish that politicians do like to push to try make a
political point, but you two seem to be sincerely stupid.
---
Geez, Bill, from what I've seen _you're_ the one hopping around making
all sorts of excuses in order to keep from having to call a mistake a
mistake.
---
Quote:
It's a big and complicated system which is now doing almost everything
that it was designed to do, and in that sense it is "working right".
Sorry, Charlie, but much like an ocean liner designed to get to 30 knots
yet can only get to 15 knots during sea trials, it won't be working
right until it reaches its stated design goals.
The "sea trials" aren't finished yet, and won't be finished until all
the offending magnets are retrained.
that it was designed to do, and in that sense it is "working right".
Sorry, Charlie, but much like an ocean liner designed to get to 30 knots
yet can only get to 15 knots during sea trials, it won't be working
right until it reaches its stated design goals.
The "sea trials" aren't finished yet, and won't be finished until all
the offending magnets are retrained.
---
Correct, and until the ship can achieve 30 knots it won't be working
right either.
---
Quote:
It hasn't yet got to the design target of 7 TeV, but the route is
clear, and the operators have a perfect right to decide how fast they
will move along it.
I'm sure the route was clear last time too...
Super-conducting magents that unexpectedly quench below the currents
that they were trained to carry are the kind of unexpected event that
requires some re-routing. One hopes that the machine doesn't have
other unexpected features - it can be a painful way of discovering new
physics.
clear, and the operators have a perfect right to decide how fast they
will move along it.
I'm sure the route was clear last time too...
Super-conducting magents that unexpectedly quench below the currents
that they were trained to carry are the kind of unexpected event that
requires some re-routing. One hopes that the machine doesn't have
other unexpected features - it can be a painful way of discovering new
physics.
---
"Features", as in _not_ bugs???
---
Quote:
It's your argument that is specious, based as it is on your own
restricted experience with rather less complicated and demanding
projects.
Hey, asshole, I'm not the one claiming the LHC is "working fine", am I?
I had noticed.
restricted experience with rather less complicated and demanding
projects.
Hey, asshole, I'm not the one claiming the LHC is "working fine", am I?
I had noticed.
---
I hadn't thought it would take a 2 by 4 to raise you from your torpor.
---
Quote:
You are the one that is advancing the specious claim
that its teething troubles represent some kind of evidence of
incompetence,
that its teething troubles represent some kind of evidence of
incompetence,
---
Well, something that wasn't supposed to happen sure did, so that kind of
points the finger away from: "We had it under control."
---
Quote:
slandering a bunch of engineers and physicists whose
competence you can only envy.
competence you can only envy.
---
Slander?
That's harsh, since I have nothing but admiration for them and all I've
done is point out that it's _you_ who's full of shit for refusing to
call a spade a spade.
---
Quote:
One can only wonder why? Perhaps you were part of the "pork" in the
Texan super-conducting collider project, and formed part of the
evidence that prompted your congress to pull the plug on that
particular project, which would explain why you want to write off the
CERN project as a failure, rather than seeing it as the success that a
more competent US competitor might have achieved.
Texan super-conducting collider project, and formed part of the
evidence that prompted your congress to pull the plug on that
particular project, which would explain why you want to write off the
CERN project as a failure, rather than seeing it as the success that a
more competent US competitor might have achieved.
---
Geez, where did I just read:
"This is the kind of unrealistic rubbish that politicians do like to
push to try make a political point...
???
PS...
Good luck with your surgery! :-)
JF
John Fields Loves Bill Sl
Guest
Guest
Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:55 pm
On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:49:04 -0600, John Fields
<jfields_at_austininstruments.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 03:33:45 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 3:40 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:28:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:22 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:36:22 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
huh? ;)
Another example of inadequate linguistic comprehension ...
---
Missed the smiley, eh?
---
you may indeed find it difficult to generalise from the problems that
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
run into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
Not at all, since I've sired five biological children, delivered one of
them at home, and can easily relate to watching and helping them learn
and grow, much like I can with the non-biological children I've sired.
If you could understand what was written, you would have understood
the the problem wasn't understanding the problems that infants present
to their parents (which you may well understand) but the problems that
come up when engineers run into when commissioning a new and
complicated piece of equipment, which you clearly don't.
Au contraire!
The problems involved in commissioning new and complicated pieces of
equipment are clearly analogous to the problems involved in bringing up
children and turning them into fully functional adult humans but, having
no children of your own, how would you know?
And you?
I've had to learn about unfants' problem vicariously from friends and
relatives - I've got eight nieces and nephews, and four grand-nieces
and -nephews, so I've heard quite a lot about the subject.
Oh, please...
Even someone as pig-headed as you are must realize that hearing about it
isn't the same as being there.
Even someone as stupid as you ought to realise that we are talking
about problems of getting large and complicated projects up and
running,
---
For someone with the sagacity which you claim to possess, it shouldn't
be much of a stretch to see that there's a valid analogy between getting
a baby human up and running, which is a large and complicated project
from infancy to adulthood, and getting a complex mechanical system, also
a large and complicated project, from drawing board to fully functional
system.
---
and my lack of hands-on expereience with children is
irrelevant, while your lack of experience with large and complicated
projects does help to explain the nonsense that you post.
---
Ah, I see...
The problem seems to be that you can't deal with analogy.
---
Cheater...
True, but precisely analogous to your boasting about your physical
fecundity, where your intellectual sterility was the subject of the
discussion.
---
Not at all, since I wasn't boasting, just using an analogy to prove your
claim false.
---
snipped the evidence that John Fields isn't quite as stupid as I'd
hoped
---
Sorry if I don't quite meet your expectations but, in that vein, I must
say you've exceeded mine!
---
There's nothing wrong with working at 3.5 TeV.
Other than the fact that it was designed to work at 7 TeV and blew up
last time it tried to get there, you're right on the money.
It was designed to work at 7 TeV and will presumably get there in the
end. The magnet that quenched last year - and did all the damage -
apparently quenched at a lower field than would be required for 7 TeV
operation, which was unexpected.
---
Really?
A remarkable grasp of the obvious, indeed!
---
At least 49 of the super-conductiong magnets are going to have to
be "retrained" so that they will remain super-conducting when
generating the magnetic fields appropriate to 7 TeV - they were got
there once (ar manufacture), but apparently the wiring has forgotten
its "training" and will have to worked up to its design levels again.
---
Hmmm...
Since having to "retrain" the unruly magnets wasn't part of the initial
scheme, then the machine (although able to limp along at 3.5 TeV) is
still broken.
It is an unexpected problem. Big and complicated projects usually
manage to produce a few of them - my younger brother once said that
his policy was to anticipate all the problem he could think of so that
when the problems that he didn't expect showed up he'd have time to
solve them.
---
Another genius...
---
It worked on the London Bridge Station rebuilding job in London in the
early 1970's, and it has cvertainly worked for me since then.
---
Wake up call, Billy, that's how we _all_ do it.
---
this is going to take a while. and the operators want to get some
physics out of what they have got before making the next step.
---
Uh, yeah, it's still broke, but we can get some use out of it until it's
fixed...
It's not broken, it is still being worked up.
---
If the plan was to get it up to 7 TeV the first time and it blew up
before it got there, then it broke and it's now being repaired.
If/when it gets to 7 TeV, _then_ it'll be working as advertised, not
limping along like it is now.
---
Sounds like spin control to me.
It isn't. What you and Jan Panteltje are pushing is negative spin -
trying to pretend a big and complicated project can hit its design
objectives as soon as the power is turned on.
---
Well, it _has_ happened more than once, you know, so it's not quite as
impossible to do as you put on.
That kind of an attitude, though, leads one to wonder about how many
preventable errors were foisted on your previous employers by your lack
of foresight.
---
This is the kind of
unrealistic rubbish that politicians do like to push to try make a
political point, but you two seem to be sincerely stupid.
---
Geez, Bill, from what I've seen _you're_ the one hopping around making
all sorts of excuses in order to keep from having to call a mistake a
mistake.
---
It's a big and complicated system which is now doing almost everything
that it was designed to do, and in that sense it is "working right".
Sorry, Charlie, but much like an ocean liner designed to get to 30 knots
yet can only get to 15 knots during sea trials, it won't be working
right until it reaches its stated design goals.
The "sea trials" aren't finished yet, and won't be finished until all
the offending magnets are retrained.
---
Correct, and until the ship can achieve 30 knots it won't be working
right either.
---
It hasn't yet got to the design target of 7 TeV, but the route is
clear, and the operators have a perfect right to decide how fast they
will move along it.
I'm sure the route was clear last time too...
Super-conducting magents that unexpectedly quench below the currents
that they were trained to carry are the kind of unexpected event that
requires some re-routing. One hopes that the machine doesn't have
other unexpected features - it can be a painful way of discovering new
physics.
---
"Features", as in _not_ bugs???
---
It's your argument that is specious, based as it is on your own
restricted experience with rather less complicated and demanding
projects.
Hey, asshole, I'm not the one claiming the LHC is "working fine", am I?
I had noticed.
---
I hadn't thought it would take a 2 by 4 to raise you from your torpor.
---
You are the one that is advancing the specious claim
that its teething troubles represent some kind of evidence of
incompetence,
---
Well, something that wasn't supposed to happen sure did, so that kind of
points the finger away from: "We had it under control."
---
slandering a bunch of engineers and physicists whose
competence you can only envy.
---
Slander?
That's harsh, since I have nothing but admiration for them and all I've
done is point out that it's _you_ who's full of shit for refusing to
call a spade a spade.
---
One can only wonder why? Perhaps you were part of the "pork" in the
Texan super-conducting collider project, and formed part of the
evidence that prompted your congress to pull the plug on that
particular project, which would explain why you want to write off the
CERN project as a failure, rather than seeing it as the success that a
more competent US competitor might have achieved.
---
Geez, where did I just read:
"This is the kind of unrealistic rubbish that politicians do like to
push to try make a political point...
???
PS...
Good luck with your surgery! :-)
JF
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 3:40 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 05:28:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:22 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:36:22 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:38:37 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:41:30 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05collide.html?ref=science
Will run only at half power until 2012.
Not a much better search for the Higgs then the 7 years at 2 TeV that Fermilab already has.
LOL
What a joke.
3.5 TeV for two years may not be much better than 2 TeV for seven
years, but it is still better than nothing, which is what the
theortical physicists had when the super-conducting magnet blew up
The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right.
---
Then your contention is that the blow-up was planned?
No - that it was the kind of teething trouble that you often run into
on large, complicated projects. Not an area you'd know much about.
---
"Teething" is usually an uncomplicated process which requires a modicum
of attention and, on occasion, some coddling.
The incident with the LHC wasn't so much like teething as it was like
having a high-speed spitball spall its way though your jaw from the
inside out, so your claim that English is your first language is belied
by your statement that:
"The joke is your claim that Large Hadron Collider isn't working right."
Teething troubles cover a variety of difficulties that show up early
in a project. Since you suffer from inadequate language comprehension,
huh? ;)
Another example of inadequate linguistic comprehension ...
---
Missed the smiley, eh?
---
you may indeed find it difficult to generalise from the problems that
parents experience with infant children to the problems that engineers
run into when commissioning new and complicated pieces of equipment,
Not at all, since I've sired five biological children, delivered one of
them at home, and can easily relate to watching and helping them learn
and grow, much like I can with the non-biological children I've sired.
If you could understand what was written, you would have understood
the the problem wasn't understanding the problems that infants present
to their parents (which you may well understand) but the problems that
come up when engineers run into when commissioning a new and
complicated piece of equipment, which you clearly don't.
Au contraire!
The problems involved in commissioning new and complicated pieces of
equipment are clearly analogous to the problems involved in bringing up
children and turning them into fully functional adult humans but, having
no children of your own, how would you know?
And you?
I've had to learn about unfants' problem vicariously from friends and
relatives - I've got eight nieces and nephews, and four grand-nieces
and -nephews, so I've heard quite a lot about the subject.
Oh, please...
Even someone as pig-headed as you are must realize that hearing about it
isn't the same as being there.
Even someone as stupid as you ought to realise that we are talking
about problems of getting large and complicated projects up and
running,
---
For someone with the sagacity which you claim to possess, it shouldn't
be much of a stretch to see that there's a valid analogy between getting
a baby human up and running, which is a large and complicated project
from infancy to adulthood, and getting a complex mechanical system, also
a large and complicated project, from drawing board to fully functional
system.
---
and my lack of hands-on expereience with children is
irrelevant, while your lack of experience with large and complicated
projects does help to explain the nonsense that you post.
---
Ah, I see...
The problem seems to be that you can't deal with analogy.
---
Cheater...
True, but precisely analogous to your boasting about your physical
fecundity, where your intellectual sterility was the subject of the
discussion.
---
Not at all, since I wasn't boasting, just using an analogy to prove your
claim false.
---
snipped the evidence that John Fields isn't quite as stupid as I'd
hoped
---
Sorry if I don't quite meet your expectations but, in that vein, I must
say you've exceeded mine!
---
There's nothing wrong with working at 3.5 TeV.
Other than the fact that it was designed to work at 7 TeV and blew up
last time it tried to get there, you're right on the money.
It was designed to work at 7 TeV and will presumably get there in the
end. The magnet that quenched last year - and did all the damage -
apparently quenched at a lower field than would be required for 7 TeV
operation, which was unexpected.
---
Really?
A remarkable grasp of the obvious, indeed!
---
At least 49 of the super-conductiong magnets are going to have to
be "retrained" so that they will remain super-conducting when
generating the magnetic fields appropriate to 7 TeV - they were got
there once (ar manufacture), but apparently the wiring has forgotten
its "training" and will have to worked up to its design levels again.
---
Hmmm...
Since having to "retrain" the unruly magnets wasn't part of the initial
scheme, then the machine (although able to limp along at 3.5 TeV) is
still broken.
It is an unexpected problem. Big and complicated projects usually
manage to produce a few of them - my younger brother once said that
his policy was to anticipate all the problem he could think of so that
when the problems that he didn't expect showed up he'd have time to
solve them.
---
Another genius...
---
It worked on the London Bridge Station rebuilding job in London in the
early 1970's, and it has cvertainly worked for me since then.
---
Wake up call, Billy, that's how we _all_ do it.
---
this is going to take a while. and the operators want to get some
physics out of what they have got before making the next step.
---
Uh, yeah, it's still broke, but we can get some use out of it until it's
fixed...
It's not broken, it is still being worked up.
---
If the plan was to get it up to 7 TeV the first time and it blew up
before it got there, then it broke and it's now being repaired.
If/when it gets to 7 TeV, _then_ it'll be working as advertised, not
limping along like it is now.
---
Sounds like spin control to me.
It isn't. What you and Jan Panteltje are pushing is negative spin -
trying to pretend a big and complicated project can hit its design
objectives as soon as the power is turned on.
---
Well, it _has_ happened more than once, you know, so it's not quite as
impossible to do as you put on.
That kind of an attitude, though, leads one to wonder about how many
preventable errors were foisted on your previous employers by your lack
of foresight.
---
This is the kind of
unrealistic rubbish that politicians do like to push to try make a
political point, but you two seem to be sincerely stupid.
---
Geez, Bill, from what I've seen _you're_ the one hopping around making
all sorts of excuses in order to keep from having to call a mistake a
mistake.
---
It's a big and complicated system which is now doing almost everything
that it was designed to do, and in that sense it is "working right".
Sorry, Charlie, but much like an ocean liner designed to get to 30 knots
yet can only get to 15 knots during sea trials, it won't be working
right until it reaches its stated design goals.
The "sea trials" aren't finished yet, and won't be finished until all
the offending magnets are retrained.
---
Correct, and until the ship can achieve 30 knots it won't be working
right either.
---
It hasn't yet got to the design target of 7 TeV, but the route is
clear, and the operators have a perfect right to decide how fast they
will move along it.
I'm sure the route was clear last time too...
Super-conducting magents that unexpectedly quench below the currents
that they were trained to carry are the kind of unexpected event that
requires some re-routing. One hopes that the machine doesn't have
other unexpected features - it can be a painful way of discovering new
physics.
---
"Features", as in _not_ bugs???
---
It's your argument that is specious, based as it is on your own
restricted experience with rather less complicated and demanding
projects.
Hey, asshole, I'm not the one claiming the LHC is "working fine", am I?
I had noticed.
---
I hadn't thought it would take a 2 by 4 to raise you from your torpor.
---
You are the one that is advancing the specious claim
that its teething troubles represent some kind of evidence of
incompetence,
---
Well, something that wasn't supposed to happen sure did, so that kind of
points the finger away from: "We had it under control."
---
slandering a bunch of engineers and physicists whose
competence you can only envy.
---
Slander?
That's harsh, since I have nothing but admiration for them and all I've
done is point out that it's _you_ who's full of shit for refusing to
call a spade a spade.
---
One can only wonder why? Perhaps you were part of the "pork" in the
Texan super-conducting collider project, and formed part of the
evidence that prompted your congress to pull the plug on that
particular project, which would explain why you want to write off the
CERN project as a failure, rather than seeing it as the success that a
more competent US competitor might have achieved.
---
Geez, where did I just read:
"This is the kind of unrealistic rubbish that politicians do like to
push to try make a political point...
???
PS...
Good luck with your surgery! :-)
JF
--
Sub Fairies Kissing Up to the Chief Fairy
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - CERN's black hole cannon not working right for a other 2 yea
