View Single Post
Old 03-08-2010, 01:57 PM   #43 (permalink)
jfitzpat
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 54
Thanks: 0
Thanked 20 Times in 8 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertSmalls View Post
Mr. Fitzpatrick,

I take it from your posts here and in the "reliable PCB" thread that your specific field of expertise is Antagonism Engineering. Consider also the fact that you are a self-described grumpy old man. Your posts have been longer than necessary, drifting off-topic, and full of sublte personal insults and irrelevant questioning of the qualifications of our guest experts.

Please change. You appear to have considerable technical knowledge and experience. Can you apply it primarily to improving EcoModder projects, instead of simply pointing out their shortcomings?
It is a valid point, but largely driven by experience and working environment. In my world, technology is separate from personal. If the post cat emissions read lean, and the instrumentation is working, then that is reality, and we work back from there.

Clearly, the culture here is somewhat reversed. When personal testimonial is that lead free solder is problematic, and that lead free solder has not presented a major health risk for 100 years, then pointing out that a) lead free solder has been the non-problematic norm for the 40M people in California for years and b) lead poisoning used to be named for professions that worked extensively with leaded solder is being "antogonistic".

Similarly, I cannot help that gasoline is too suceptible to temperature to represent .1% accuracy from injector pulse width. I do not control the physics involved, nor did I author the dozens of SAE papers on the subject.

I do have a very low threshold for tolerance of arm waving and BS. So my responses will tend to get less patient when someone cites, incorrectly, mil spec issues regarding solder or starts talking about non existant weather phenomena ("radiated..."). Again, to me it all starts with objective reality. If the military and JPL do tests on reliability, then those results have to be factored into a hypothesis. Similarly, if the FAA doesn't recognize a phenomena, nor can we find it in the NTSB database, then there is no reason to presume it exists.

Obviously, crushing spirits is not productive. But it is hard for me to envision how ignoring conflict with objective reality is helpful either. So better to revert to lurking mode and let the culture here proceed as it is.

Regards,
-jjf
  Reply With Quote