Discussion:
Why can't people figure out warp versus runout versus disc thickness variation
(too old to reply)
Arlen Holder
2018-08-07 02:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Why, for Christs' sake, can't people figure out the difference in the
English language between warp versus runout or disc thickness variation?

There has been a perennial argument since the 70's when someone got the
notion that brake rotor (aka disc) "warp" is the same as "dtv" (which it's
not), where it can't be shaken out of their heads that they are two
completely different things. Likewise with "runout".

Witness this reference posted in good faith to the home-repair group today:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.home.repair/mIcLF2bSnU8/3sE9Wi1ODgAJ>

Which referenced this paper:
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11665-012-0397-7>
Titled:
The Effect of Residual Stress on the Distortion of Gray Iron Brake Disks

In that paper, the Asian authors *continually* appear to callously abuse
the English language by confusing the term "warp" with "disk thickness
variation (DTV)", which is completely different from warp (as in a potato).

For example, you can have a warped sheet of metal where the thickness
variation is zero, and you can have a thickness variation without warp.

If this was a high-school kid equating the two, I'd shrug it off as
ignorance; but this is an engineering paper, for heaven's sake.

Here is the first sentence where they appear to abuse the English language:
"It is known that disk warping or uneven disk thicknesses
induce pulsation during brake applications."

Clearly it is well known that "warp" (as in potato) and "uneven thickness"
are two completely different things - which means that this particular set
of Asian authors (M. W. ShinG. H. JangJ. K. KimH. Y. KimHo Jang) are likely
ignorant of what "warp" actually means - or - they simply assume that it
means something that it doesn't mean (i.e., warp and thickness variation
are completely different things - they just are).

They then compound their abuse of the English language in a sentence not
far from that last horrid sentence, saying:
"When the disk temperature is increased by friction heat during braking,
the heat often causes dimensional instability of the disk,
permanently modifying the runout or disk thickness variation (DTV)
of a disk and producing brake judder."

This sentence clearly appears to indicate the authors have no clue how to
use the English language because it's a fact that runout and DTV are also
two completely different things.

============ terms below ==============
Stop the ¡Warped¢ Rotors Myth and Service Brakes the Right Way
http://www.brakeandfrontend.com/warped-rotors-myth/

BTW, if you skim the paper, these two definitions may be useful:
Gray Iron
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gray%20iron>
"pig or cast iron containing much graphitic carbon which causes
its fracture to be dark gray"

Residual Stress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual_stress
"Residual stresses are stresses that remain in a solid material after
the original cause of the stresses has been removed."
Paul in Houston TX
2018-08-07 02:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arlen Holder
Why, for Christs' sake, can't people figure out the difference in the
English language between warp versus runout or disc thickness variation?
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11665-012-0397-7>
The Effect of Residual Stress on the Distortion of Gray Iron Brake Disks
In that paper, the Asian authors *continually* appear to callously abuse
the English language by confusing the term "warp" with "disk thickness
variation (DTV)", which is completely different from warp (as in a potato).
To be sure of their meaning, you will need to be fluent in Korean
and read the original paper in its native language, Korean.
https://www.boredpanda.com/funny-chinese-translation-fails/
Arlen Holder
2018-08-07 02:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul in Houston TX
To be sure of their meaning, you will need to be fluent in Korean
and read the original paper in its native language, Korean.
https://www.boredpanda.com/funny-chinese-translation-fails/
I'm not sure the paper is actually written originally in Korean, are you?

The authors seem completely ignorant that the word "warp" has two different
meanings, one of which is the colloquial abuse of the word, while the other
is the technical use of the word.

Given that it's a technical paper, I'm astounded that they used the
colloquial term, and even more so astounded that we can assume that's a
peer reviewed paper, where one wonders how it got accepted given the horrid
abuse of the English language.

Given the paper equated "warp" with DTV & lateral runout, this description
is apropos to describe what those two latter terms mean, technically
speaking:
Stop the ¡¥Warped¡Š Rotors Myth and Service Brakes the Right Way
<http://www.brakeandfrontend.com/warped-rotors-myth/>
Where that author advises:
"Starting today, remove ¡§warped rotor¡š from your vocabulary. Instead, you
should be both looking for and educating your customers about these terms:
Lateral Runout & Disc Thickness Variation (DTV)"
Paul in Houston TX
2018-08-07 03:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arlen Holder
Post by Paul in Houston TX
To be sure of their meaning, you will need to be fluent in Korean
and read the original paper in its native language, Korean.
https://www.boredpanda.com/funny-chinese-translation-fails/
I'm not sure the paper is actually written originally in Korean, are you?
The authors seem completely ignorant that the word "warp" has two different
meanings, one of which is the colloquial abuse of the word, while the other
is the technical use of the word.
Odds are the authors are not fluent in English and they had a grad student
translate for them. There is no telling what they orginally meant.

"The Effect of Residual Stress on the Distortion of Gray Iron Brake Disks"

Authors
Authors and affiliations

M. W. Shin
G. H. Jang
J. K. Kim
H. Y. Kim
Ho JangEmail author

M. W. Shin
1
G. H. Jang
1
J. K. Kim
2
H. Y. Kim
2
Ho Jang
1
Email author

1.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringKorea UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
2.R&D DivisionHyundai Motor Company and Kia Motors CorporationHwaseong-siRepublic of
Korea
Jack
2018-08-07 03:10:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 02:05:46 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
Post by Arlen Holder
Why, for Christs' sake, can't people figure out the difference in the
English language between warp versus runout or disc thickness variation?
There has been a perennial argument since the 70's when someone got the
notion that brake rotor (aka disc) "warp" is the same as "dtv" (which it's
not), where it can't be shaken out of their heads that they are two
completely different things. Likewise with "runout".
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.home.repair/mIcLF2bSnU8/3sE9Wi1ODgAJ>
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11665-012-0397-7>
The Effect of Residual Stress on the Distortion of Gray Iron Brake Disks
In that paper, the Asian authors *continually* appear to callously abuse
the English language by confusing the term "warp" with "disk thickness
variation (DTV)", which is completely different from warp (as in a potato).
For example, you can have a warped sheet of metal where the thickness
variation is zero, and you can have a thickness variation without warp.
If this was a high-school kid equating the two, I'd shrug it off as
ignorance; but this is an engineering paper, for heaven's sake.
"It is known that disk warping or uneven disk thicknesses
induce pulsation during brake applications."
Are you assuming that the 'or' means they are equating 'warping' with
'thickness variations'? Maybe they just mean that either condition can
cause pulsations.
Post by Arlen Holder
Clearly it is well known that "warp" (as in potato) and "uneven thickness"
are two completely different things - which means that this particular set
of Asian authors (M. W. ShinG. H. JangJ. K. KimH. Y. KimHo Jang) are likely
ignorant of what "warp" actually means - or - they simply assume that it
means something that it doesn't mean (i.e., warp and thickness variation
are completely different things - they just are).
They then compound their abuse of the English language in a sentence not
"When the disk temperature is increased by friction heat during braking,
the heat often causes dimensional instability of the disk,
permanently modifying the runout or disk thickness variation (DTV)
of a disk and producing brake judder."
Again, maybe they mean that 'dimensional instability' can modify
either runout or DTV, causing brake judder, without equating the two
distiortions.
Post by Arlen Holder
This sentence clearly appears to indicate the authors have no clue how to
use the English language because it's a fact that runout and DTV are also
two completely different things.
{trimmed}.
--
John
Arlen Holder
2018-08-07 04:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
Are you assuming that the 'or' means they are equating 'warping' with
'thickness variations'? Maybe they just mean that either condition can
cause pulsations.
I fully agree that the "or" is confusing in and of itself, but I read the
entire paper, so I know what they *measured*, where they did NOT measure
warp.

Warp is easily measured since anyone who checks a head, for example,
measures it for warp. You use a known-straight surface and then you use
feeler gauges to see the variation in "flatness" to that known flat
surface.

From the word "or", I agree with you the authors' intent is ambiguous - but
from their measurements, they clearly measured DTV and lateral runout.
Post by Jack
Again, maybe they mean that 'dimensional instability' can modify
either runout or DTV, causing brake judder, without equating the two
distiortions.
I think they intended on proving that *heat treating* caused less lateral
runout and/or less disc thickness variation - which I'm sure they did
accomplish.

But that's not the same thing as warp, which is not only the word they used
repeatedly, but which was the reason that the person referred me to that
paper, since *he* thought the paper had something to do with warp.

It didn't.
It just used the word.
But they abused the English language in using the word (IMHO).

That boggles the mind that people are _that_ sloppy using that technical
term, particularly because disc rotors can't warp (as in potato chip)
because the temperatures required are impossible to achieve according to
the reliable references I've seen.

Raybestos says:
"Brake rotors do not warp from heat..."
<http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=1787>

This says:
"Rotors are cast in extreme heat three to five times greater than
the most aggressive braking situation. Physically, warping a rotor
would require a similar application of extreme heat, which is
impossible."
<http://www.brakeandfrontend.com/warped-rotors-myth/>

This says:
"...the temperature required to make metal that resilient soft enough to
simply bend would be tremendous."
<https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/why-do-brake-rotors-warp>

This says that there are adverse effects starting at 1200dF:
"When this local temperature reaches around 1200 or 1300 degrees F.
the cast iron under the deposit begins to transform into cementite
(an iron carbide in which three atoms of iron combine with one atom
of carbon). Cementite is very hard, very abrasive and is a poor heat
sink. If severe use continues the system will enter a self-defeating
spiral - the amount and depth of the cementite increases with
increasing temperature and so does the brake roughness."
<https://alconkits.com/technical-info/brake-tech/56-the-myth-of-warped-brake-discs>

This says:
"in more than 40 years of professional racing, including the Shelby/Ford
GT 40s, one of the most intense brake development program in history
- I have never seen a warped brake disc."
<http://www.stoptech.com/technical-support/technical-white-papers/-warped-brake-disc-and-other-myths>

These say the myth of warped rotors started in the 1970's:
<http://www.brakeandfrontend.com/brake-tech-feature-8-myths-that-could-be-holding-you-back-from-performing-the-best-brake-job/>
<https://www.onallcylinders.com/2017/05/19/6-biggest-brake-rotor-myths-debunked/>

This non-scientific thread, which we can quickly assume isn't scientific so
let's just take it as a reasonable point of view only, says that the
surface may get to 600dF but the rest of the rotor is at a lower
temperature than the surface.
<https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/3dxoli/the_myth_of_brake_rotor_warping/>

It's pretty clear from this (and other references) that the authors abused
the term "warp" - but since the long term solution for a warped rotor is
completely different than the long term solution for a rotor with lateral
runout or disc thickness variation, it's *important* the distinction.

NOTE: A compounding factor is that the short-term solution to warp is the
*same* for disc-thickness variation (but not for lateral runout) - which is
why you consistently get guys implementing the short term solution for
brake judder instead of the long-term solution, simply because they *think*
their rotors warped (as in potato chip).

Hence, use of the wrong terminology has many dollars of unintended
consequences (likely hundreds of millions of wasted money every year,
IMHO).
Jack
2018-08-07 19:50:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 04:08:25 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
Post by Arlen Holder
Post by Jack
Are you assuming that the 'or' means they are equating 'warping' with
'thickness variations'? Maybe they just mean that either condition can
cause pulsations.
I fully agree that the "or" is confusing in and of itself, but I read the
entire paper, so I know what they *measured*, where they did NOT measure
warp.
Warp is easily measured since anyone who checks a head, for example,
measures it for warp. You use a known-straight surface and then you use
feeler gauges to see the variation in "flatness" to that known flat
surface.
From the word "or", I agree with you the authors' intent is ambiguous - but
from their measurements, they clearly measured DTV and lateral runout.
Post by Jack
Again, maybe they mean that 'dimensional instability' can modify
either runout or DTV, causing brake judder, without equating the two
distiortions.
I think they intended on proving that *heat treating* caused less lateral
runout and/or less disc thickness variation - which I'm sure they did
accomplish.
But that's not the same thing as warp, which is not only the word they used
repeatedly, but which was the reason that the person referred me to that
paper, since *he* thought the paper had something to do with warp.
It didn't.
It just used the word.
But they abused the English language in using the word (IMHO).
That boggles the mind that people are _that_ sloppy using that technical
term, particularly because disc rotors can't warp (as in potato chip)
because the temperatures required are impossible to achieve according to
the reliable references I've seen.
"Brake rotors do not warp from heat..."
<http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=1787>
"Rotors are cast in extreme heat three to five times greater than
the most aggressive braking situation. Physically, warping a rotor
would require a similar application of extreme heat, which is
impossible."
<http://www.brakeandfrontend.com/warped-rotors-myth/>
"...the temperature required to make metal that resilient soft enough to
simply bend would be tremendous."
<https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/why-do-brake-rotors-warp>
"When this local temperature reaches around 1200 or 1300 degrees F.
the cast iron under the deposit begins to transform into cementite
(an iron carbide in which three atoms of iron combine with one atom
of carbon). Cementite is very hard, very abrasive and is a poor heat
sink. If severe use continues the system will enter a self-defeating
spiral - the amount and depth of the cementite increases with
increasing temperature and so does the brake roughness."
<https://alconkits.com/technical-info/brake-tech/56-the-myth-of-warped-brake-discs>
"in more than 40 years of professional racing, including the Shelby/Ford
GT 40s, one of the most intense brake development program in history
- I have never seen a warped brake disc."
<http://www.stoptech.com/technical-support/technical-white-papers/-warped-brake-disc-and-other-myths>
<http://www.brakeandfrontend.com/brake-tech-feature-8-myths-that-could-be-holding-you-back-from-performing-the-best-brake-job/>
<https://www.onallcylinders.com/2017/05/19/6-biggest-brake-rotor-myths-debunked/>
This non-scientific thread, which we can quickly assume isn't scientific so
let's just take it as a reasonable point of view only, says that the
surface may get to 600dF but the rest of the rotor is at a lower
temperature than the surface.
<https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/3dxoli/the_myth_of_brake_rotor_warping/>
It's pretty clear from this (and other references) that the authors abused
the term "warp" - but since the long term solution for a warped rotor is
completely different than the long term solution for a rotor with lateral
runout or disc thickness variation, it's *important* the distinction.
NOTE: A compounding factor is that the short-term solution to warp is the
*same* for disc-thickness variation (but not for lateral runout) - which is
why you consistently get guys implementing the short term solution for
brake judder instead of the long-term solution, simply because they *think*
their rotors warped (as in potato chip).
Hence, use of the wrong terminology has many dollars of unintended
consequences (likely hundreds of millions of wasted money every year,
IMHO).
I bought a 97 Contour in 2001, and it had brake pulsation. I called it
warped rotor, not caring much what was the precise distortion that
caused the pulsation. I replaced all four rotors myself for $105. Not
really big money. It's been a long-term solution: I still keep the car
for pulling a trailer, and the problem has never returned.
Maybe they weren't 'warped', or maybe they were, by careless lug nut
tightening.

Another sort of physics/language problem -

"Rotors are cast in extreme heat three to five times greater than the
most aggressive braking situation."

I don't think it makes sense to speak of multiples of temperature
unless you are referencing to absolute zero.
--
John
Arlen Holder
2018-08-07 21:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
I bought a 97 Contour in 2001, and it had brake pulsation. I called it
warped rotor, not caring much what was the precise distortion that
caused the pulsation.
Agreed that the abuse of the word "warp" has zero negative effects ... if
... if ... if ... if ... if .... if ... if ... if ... if...

Remember the Spartan's response to the "if we attack you" diplomatic
'cable' way back in the days of the Greeks? The keyword is if.

If you actually *act* on "warp", you'll do the most insane things, and, in
the end, you'll *still* have your vibration.

Thats' because the long-term solution for warp is *different* than the long
term solution for, say, lateral runout or disc thickness variation.

The short term solution is the same - but the long term solution is
completely different.

That's the main reason it matters.
Jack
2018-08-07 22:22:01 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 21:43:41 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
Post by Arlen Holder
Post by Jack
I bought a 97 Contour in 2001, and it had brake pulsation. I called it
warped rotor, not caring much what was the precise distortion that
caused the pulsation.
Agreed that the abuse of the word "warp" has zero negative effects ... if
... if ... if ... if ... if .... if ... if ... if ... if...
Remember the Spartan's response to the "if we attack you" diplomatic
'cable' way back in the days of the Greeks? The keyword is if.
If you actually *act* on "warp", you'll do the most insane things, and, in
the end, you'll *still* have your vibration.
I acted on "warp", sensibly replaced my rotors, and it solved the
problem permanently.
--
John
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-08 02:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
Another sort of physics/language problem -
"Rotors are cast in extreme heat three to five times greater than the
most aggressive braking situation."
I don't think it makes sense to speak of multiples of temperature
unless you are referencing to absolute zero.
Whoa! Somehow he stumbled into an actual AUE topic!
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-08 06:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack
Another sort of physics/language problem -
"Rotors are cast in extreme heat three to five times greater than the
most aggressive braking situation."
I don't think it makes sense to speak of multiples of temperature
unless you are referencing to absolute zero.
I suppose referencing to 0 K is marginally less arbitrary than
referencing to 0°C or 0°F (especially as it avoids complications with
negative values), but it still makes almost no sense. Would you say
that 546 K is twice as hot as 273 K?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Whoa! Somehow he stumbled into an actual AUE topic!
--
athel
Jack
2018-08-08 12:15:05 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 08:33:46 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Jack
Another sort of physics/language problem -
"Rotors are cast in extreme heat three to five times greater than the
most aggressive braking situation."
I don't think it makes sense to speak of multiples of temperature
unless you are referencing to absolute zero.
I suppose referencing to 0 K is marginally less arbitrary than
referencing to 0°C or 0°F (especially as it avoids complications with
negative values), but it still makes almost no sense. Would you say
that 546 K is twice as hot as 273 K?
I think it means twice the energy. I agree, it means nothing in the
context of whether a piece of metal would soften.
Anyway, 1 C isn't 1000 times as hot as .001 C.
--
John
J. J. Lodder
2018-08-08 14:37:32 UTC
Permalink
[nothing of relevance, snipped]
Post by Jack
Another sort of physics/language problem -
"Rotors are cast in extreme heat three to five times greater than the
most aggressive braking situation."
I don't think it makes sense to speak of multiples of temperature
unless you are referencing to absolute zero.
I suppose referencing to 0 K is marginally less arbitrary than
referencing to 0°C or 0°F (especially as it avoids complications with
negative values), but it still makes almost no sense.
You are more than marginally wrong about that.
The only definition of temperature that makes thermodynamic sense
(as opposed to arbitrary phenomenological scales)
is the absolute temperature.

Now thermodynamics defines temperatures as ratios,
and only as ratios.
(by means of Carnot processes)
To obtain numerical absolute temperatures
an arbitrary point has to be fixed.
This is just a choice, thermodynamics can say nothing about it.
(you may just as well measure temperature in Kelvin as in eV)

So one body being twice as hot as another
is an immediate consequence of the thermodynamic temperature definition.
Would you say that 546 K is twice as hot as 273 K?
Yes of course, it can mean nothing else.

And yes, Carnot was not an ordinary genius,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-08 16:30:48 UTC
Permalink
[nothing of relevance, snipped]
Then why was the attribution retained?
J. J. Lodder
2018-08-08 20:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
[nothing of relevance, snipped]
[more, now snipped by PTD]
Then why was the attribution retained?
You were in the middle, between relevant parts,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-09 02:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
[nothing of relevance, snipped]
[more, now snipped by PTD]
Then why was the attribution retained?
You were in the middle, between relevant parts,
Was it too difficult to remove an attribution along with the lines it
referred to? Hint: select the line, then press Delete or Backspace.
J. J. Lodder
2018-08-09 08:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
[nothing of relevance, snipped]
[more, now snipped by PTD]
Then why was the attribution retained?
You were in the middle, between relevant parts,
Was it too difficult to remove an attribution along with the lines it
referred to? Hint: select the line, then press Delete or Backspace.
By order of The Committee the Holy Triangle shall not be mutilated,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-08 17:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ … ]
I suppose referencing to 0 K is marginally less arbitrary than
referencing to 0°C or 0°F (especially as it avoids complications with
negative values), but it still makes almost no sense.
You are more than marginally wrong about that.
The only definition of temperature that makes thermodynamic sense
(as opposed to arbitrary phenomenological scales)
is the absolute temperature.
Now thermodynamics defines temperatures as ratios,
and only as ratios.
(by means of Carnot processes)
To obtain numerical absolute temperatures
an arbitrary point has to be fixed.
This is just a choice, thermodynamics can say nothing about it.
(you may just as well measure temperature in Kelvin as in eV)
So one body being twice as hot as another
is an immediate consequence of the thermodynamic temperature definition.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Would you say that 546 K is twice as hot as 273 K?
Yes of course, it can mean nothing else.
We're considering English usage here, not physics, and whatever physics
may say (and I don't argue with you from the point of view of physics)
I don't believe any ordinary person would regard 546 K (273°C, 573°F)
as twice as hot as 273 K (0°C, 32°F).
Post by J. J. Lodder
And yes, Carnot was not an ordinary genius,
Jan
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2018-08-08 20:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ - ]
[non-ASCII hyphen-lookalike replaced by genuine - ]
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I suppose referencing to 0 K is marginally less arbitrary than
referencing to 0°C or 0°F (especially as it avoids complications with
negative values), but it still makes almost no sense.
You are more than marginally wrong about that.
The only definition of temperature that makes thermodynamic sense
(as opposed to arbitrary phenomenological scales)
is the absolute temperature.
Now thermodynamics defines temperatures as ratios,
and only as ratios.
(by means of Carnot processes)
To obtain numerical absolute temperatures
an arbitrary point has to be fixed.
This is just a choice, thermodynamics can say nothing about it.
(you may just as well measure temperature in Kelvin as in eV)
So one body being twice as hot as another
is an immediate consequence of the thermodynamic temperature definition.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Would you say that 546 K is twice as hot as 273 K?
Yes of course, it can mean nothing else.
We're considering English usage here, not physics, and whatever physics
may say (and I don't argue with you from the point of view of physics)
I don't believe any ordinary person would regard 546 K (273°C, 573°F)
as twice as hot as 273 K (0°C, 32°F).
What do 'ordinary persons' have to do with it?
They have no idea of what a Kelvin is to begin with.
Or what Celsius is either.

That's like discussing spelling with a dyslectic,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-09 05:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
[ - ]
[non-ASCII hyphen-lookalike replaced by genuine - ]
Actually supposed to be three dots ... but my operating system decided
to replace it with the character you see. I was aware of this (because
it does it as intended on my other computer), but I didn't see it as
the most urgent thing to fix.

However, I'll make a deal: if you start systematically using tinyurl
(or equivalent) for your URLs when appropriate (your present approach
is a far greater nuisance than anything due to my three dots) I'll fix
it.
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2018-08-09 08:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
[ - ]
[non-ASCII hyphen-lookalike replaced by genuine - ]
Actually supposed to be three dots ... but my operating system decided
to replace it with the character you see. I was aware of this (because
it does it as intended on my other computer), but I didn't see it as
the most urgent thing to fix.
Just wonder why you bother.
The one and only god-given hyphen is directly on your keyboard,
between the 0 and the =
Why take the trouble to produce some other abomination?
An AZERTY thing, prhaps?
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
However, I'll make a deal: if you start systematically using tinyurl
(or equivalent) for your URLs when appropriate (your present approach
is a far greater nuisance than anything due to my three dots) I'll fix
it.
You heretic.
My URLs conform in all respects to the decrees of Saint Tim,
and attempting to improve on his words of wisdom is blasphemy,

Jan

Peter Moylan
2018-08-07 05:41:28 UTC
Permalink
[Followups set to a group that might find this interesting.]
In that paper, the Asian authors*continually* appear to callously
abuse the English language by confusing the term "warp" with "disk
thickness variation (DTV)", which is completely different from warp
(as in a potato).
Bad translations by non-native speakers will always be with us. When
you're using a language that's not your own, it's not always easy to
find le mot juste.

Using the wrong technical term in a technical paper is a problem, of
course, but it hardly amounts to an abuse of the English language.

Now, if the disk had capsized, ...
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Snidely
2018-08-07 08:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
[Followups set to a group that might find this interesting.]
In that paper, the Asian authors*continually* appear to callously
abuse the English language by confusing the term "warp" with "disk
thickness variation (DTV)", which is completely different from warp
(as in a potato).
Bad translations by non-native speakers will always be with us. When
you're using a language that's not your own, it's not always easy to
find le mot juste.
Using the wrong technical term in a technical paper is a problem, of
course, but it hardly amounts to an abuse of the English language.
Now, if the disk had capsized, ...
Deja vu all over again, eh?

/dps
--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-07 12:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snidely
Post by Peter Moylan
[Followups set to a group that might find this interesting.]
In that paper, the Asian authors*continually* appear to callously
abuse the English language by confusing the term "warp" with "disk
thickness variation (DTV)", which is completely different from warp
(as in a potato).
Bad translations by non-native speakers will always be with us. When
you're using a language that's not your own, it's not always easy to
find le mot juste.
Using the wrong technical term in a technical paper is a problem, of
course, but it hardly amounts to an abuse of the English language.
Now, if the disk had capsized, ...
Deja vu all over again, eh?
Where is this thread crossposted from? I was about to mark it SPAM when I
saw the inevitable intervention by PM.
Horace LaBadie
2018-08-07 12:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Snidely
Post by Peter Moylan
[Followups set to a group that might find this interesting.]
In that paper, the Asian authors*continually* appear to callously
abuse the English language by confusing the term "warp" with "disk
thickness variation (DTV)", which is completely different from warp
(as in a potato).
Bad translations by non-native speakers will always be with us. When
you're using a language that's not your own, it's not always easy to
find le mot juste.
Using the wrong technical term in a technical paper is a problem, of
course, but it hardly amounts to an abuse of the English language.
Now, if the disk had capsized, ...
Deja vu all over again, eh?
Where is this thread crossposted from? I was about to mark it SPAM when I
saw the inevitable intervention by PM.
rec.autos.tech
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-07 12:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Snidely
Post by Peter Moylan
[Followups set to a group that might find this interesting.]
In that paper, the Asian authors*continually* appear to callously
abuse the English language by confusing the term "warp" with "disk
thickness variation (DTV)", which is completely different from warp
(as in a potato).
Bad translations by non-native speakers will always be with us. When
you're using a language that's not your own, it's not always easy to
find le mot juste.
Using the wrong technical term in a technical paper is a problem, of
course, but it hardly amounts to an abuse of the English language.
Now, if the disk had capsized, ...
Deja vu all over again, eh?
Where is this thread crossposted from? I was about to mark it SPAM when I
saw the inevitable intervention by PM.
rec.autos.tech
Which means OP thought it was a matter of English usage (along with a
dose of racism), as opposed to a matter of technical vocabulary. Rather
different from "capsize."
Richard Tobin
2018-08-07 14:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arlen Holder
Why, for Christs' sake, can't people figure out the difference in the
English language between warp versus runout or disc thickness variation?
This must be one of our trolls back again.

-- Richard
musika
2018-08-07 14:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Arlen Holder
Why, for Christs' sake, can't people figure out the difference in the
English language between warp versus runout or disc thickness variation?
This must be one of our trolls back again.
Yes, it's the algerian.
--
Ray
UK
Tony Cooper
2018-08-07 15:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Arlen Holder
Why, for Christs' sake, can't people figure out the difference in the
English language between warp versus runout or disc thickness variation?
This must be one of our trolls back again.
Yes..."Arlen Holder" is another name used by a well-known troll in
some newsgroups.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
B***@37.com
2018-08-08 08:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Is this warp the same one Captain Kirk calls for when he tells Spock to tell Scotty he desperately needs more warp speed Now?
Loading...