Page 4 of 4

Re: Back to basics

Posted: Tue 01 Jul, 2008 1:14 am
by Roboframer
John wrote:Jolly Good Framer #1's framed newspaper experiment tells the story much better than some half understood theory ever could for me.
Bully for you!

It's not a theory - it's a fact - but if JGF#1 can do it in pictures (proving that fact) then biiiiig props!
I believe .................. I tend to get a bit sceptical ..........I want to be shown, ..........for me, Jolly Good Framer #1's experiment has more validity than a ton of scientific mumbo jumbo.
Bully again - some geezer (no disrespect) who has (or I have) proved he does not understand the capabilities/limitations of materials he stocks/uses - does it for you?

Re: Back to basics

Posted: Tue 01 Jul, 2008 7:21 am
by The Jolly Good Framer #1
None taken :)

Re: Back to basics

Posted: Tue 01 Jul, 2008 7:27 am
by John
Perhaps it's the discipline of studying for an engineering degree (Civils, Strathclyde University), which could be described as the real world application of scientific theory, and having worked for many years in that field, that has caused my mumbo-jumbometer to become so highly developed. :)

You know, until the Wright brothers took off, theoreticians would have had us believe that heaver than air flight was impossible. Luckily the 'show me' attitude prevailed.

Re: Back to basics

Posted: Tue 01 Jul, 2008 9:13 am
by prospero
A bit of wisdom from Arthur C. Clark: :shock:

"When a scientist says something is possible, he is usually right. When he says something is immpossible, he is usually wrong"..... :wink:

Re: Back to basics

Posted: Tue 01 Jul, 2008 11:03 am
by framejunkie
John wrote:You know, until the Wright brothers took off, theoreticians would have had us believe that heaver than air flight was impossible. Luckily the 'show me' attitude prevailed.
Strictly speaking the theoreticians knew that heavier than air flight was possible. This follows from the fluid dynamics work of Bernoulli in the 18th century. It was the people who failed to grasp the implications of this who thought man would never fly. :nerd:

That said, i totally share your empiricist viewpoint John.

Ever heard the old story that bumble-bees defy the laws of physics? I've heard that used as a justification for all sorts of things and proof of the existence of god. The truth of it is simply that our current models of fluid dynamics work well on the scale of, say, an Airbus A320, but not on the scale of a bee's wing. Its the model being flawed, not the bee being supernatural. The 'Show me' attitude says that bees fly, even if the science is not so sure.
prospero wrote:A bit of wisdom from Arthur C. Clark: :shock:

"When a scientist says something is possible, he is usually right. When he says something is immpossible, he is usually wrong"
Arthur C Clarke also said that any technology sufficiently more advanced than our own is indistinguishable from magic. That's how i feel about museum glass - spooky voodoo science, and not wholly to be trusted. :devil:

Re: Back to basics

Posted: Tue 01 Jul, 2008 12:55 pm
by The Jolly Good Framer #1
I think it is fair to say that the only reason Bumble bees can fly is because no one has told them they can’t.

Did I ever tell you about the time I framed a bumble bee using Tru Vue conservation clear glass? No? Oh well another time maybe.

Image

Re: Back to basics

Posted: Tue 01 Jul, 2008 3:36 pm
by framejunkie
When you say you framed a bee, do you mean in the criminal sense?

Was it a sting operation? :Slap:

Re: Back to basics

Posted: Wed 02 Jul, 2008 2:59 pm
by Bill Henry
framejunkie wrote:When you say you framed a bee, do you mean in the criminal sense?

Was it a sting operation? :Slap:
I remember that; it was in all the newspapers. It stirred up quite a buzz around here.

We should be ashamed of ourselves!

Re: Back to basics

Posted: Wed 02 Jul, 2008 3:23 pm
by John
Bill Henry wrote:It stirred up quite a buzz around here.
A hive of activity?
:)

Re: Back to basics

Posted: Wed 02 Jul, 2008 6:43 pm
by Spit
Beehive yourselves :twisted:

Re: Back to basics

Posted: Wed 02 Jul, 2008 9:28 pm
by The Jolly Good Framer #1
What was this thread about again? :giggle:

Re: Back to basics

Posted: Wed 02 Jul, 2008 11:58 pm
by prospero
The Jolly Good Framer #1 wrote:What was this thread about again? :giggle:
...I framed a tangent once. :giggle:

Re: Back to basics

Posted: Thu 03 Jul, 2008 8:22 am
by framejunkie
The Jolly Good Framer #1 wrote:What was this thread about again? :giggle:
Sorry - i wanted to inject a little mirth into this thread - all the MDF-related agro was bringing me out in hives.

(Edit - just realised we had that one already! :oops: )

Re: Back to basics

Posted: Sun 31 Aug, 2008 11:56 am
by Ian Goodman
John & Ormond

I too don't like MDF used, you only have to walk into a shop that sells MDF based framing and you are taken back by the smell (formaldehyde).

I know though that Dry Mount Tissue or Film is a barrier to moisture and this is the reason for the non destruction of johns Images in his bathroom.

Had they not been dry mounted then it may have been a different story.

(I am not an MDF user and don't miss it)