Time-Binding Bound Too Tightly

[David Linwood]

Time-Binding Bound Too Tightly

by David (Levine) Linwood

I received the following piece from a former colleague, Professor Karla Foss, indicating when the “Bindings” might be a little too tight.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

“The U.S. Standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is four feet, eight-and-a-half inches. That’s an exceedingly odd number.

Why was that gauge used? Because that’s the way they built them in England, and the U. S. railroads were built by English expatriates.

Why did the English people build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that’s the gauge they used.

Why did “they” use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.

Okay! Why did the wagons use that odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing the wagons would break on some of the old long distance roads, because that’s the spacing of the old wheel ruts.

So who built these old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in Europe were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their legions. The roads have been used ever since.

And the ruts? The initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagons, were first made by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made for or by Imperial Rome they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Thus we have the answer to the original question. The United States standard railroad gauge of four feet, eight-and-a-half inches derives from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman army war chariot. Specs and bureaucrats live forever. So, the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse’s ass came up with it, you may be exactly right. Because the Imperial Roman chariots were made to be just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses.

Now the twist to the story . . . .

There’s an interesting extension of the story about railroad gauge and horses’ behinds. When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on the launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are the solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at a factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line to the factory runs through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than a railroad track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horse’s behinds.

So a major design feature of what is arguably the world’s most advanced transportation system was determined by the width of a horse’s ass!

Karla Foss, Email: [e-mail]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Like every other potential humankind has, we have to apply the time-binding potential with some care. It doesn’t operate automatically, and it doesn’t come “for free”.

David Linwood, Knoxville, January 2005
[e-mail]

[David Linwood]

Hello,
The halls ring slightly with the ghosts that still remain. Is anyone still here? I heard from Steve Stockdale. He is reviving this old house in a very beautiful way that I admire greatly. He has made a presentation of GS for us to to read (words), and to watch (videos). I was fascinating with what he produced. Obviously very creative, He brings me, all willing, back to my old roots. We should be hearing from him within a few weeks. I plan to check in here every few days to see when the show begins. Feels like boarding a haywagon for a ride in the summertime. Gather around. We'll sit by the fire and tell stories and sing. --- David

[l'm]

a T?...
...yes but with a cloud of milk please...

> that must be the shortest (one letter) I've ever read. did you mean something like " suits very well" ?
Have a good day!

[Nora]

Yes, you have understood it exactly. I provide support for electric utility staff who use a website to report their energy conservation activities to a federal energy agency. The site is quite deep and "full-featured" (read: "complex") so I often get calls where I have to verbally guide the user step by step through a process. Sometimes they get error messages I don't see, or they get off onto a different page, so I have to imagine what they see so I can point them to the way out. I've learned a great deal about both how people think and how people see over the years. When I ask "tell me what you see on the screen" I get answers ranging from a word for word recital starting at the upper left (even if that text isn't part of the relevant window!) to "it says something about an error....." and nothing more. One develops a sense of being a mind-reader--"what exact word can I say that will turn on the lightbulb in this person's mind?" The job suits my personality to a T, as we say here.

[l'm]

Exactly exactly exactly, ....

I feel you grasped my main idea here... to reinforce or even initialize sometimes.
And I also love this word multi-modal (sounds a lot better than multimedia and perhaps wider). It reminds me of this box I'm using to input my message why the hell did somebody decided it only needed a 4 lines height? Eh why? (I might ask Mr Ning again actually). I would like to see a more panoramic view of my prose...

What kind of remote technical support do you mean? I am curious because I sometimes do that with my father (+- 70 years old) who discovered the use of a computer a few months ago and is struggling with Open Office Writer sometimes. As he knows I teach he does not hesitate to ask me (by phone), that is why I believe I understand exactly what you mean.

[Nora]

Nice pictures, Luc. I deduce that you favor the visual, or at least, the multi-modal to reinforce learning and understanding. In my work doing remote technical support, I have to visual the remote user's screen and actions, and I do that so intuitively that I often forget to include visual aids in my explanations and write-ups. Thanks for the reminder!

[l'm]

Big pictures to illustrate a part of the story.

(Image from >
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-95/images/images.html)

(Image from >
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Railroad_construction_-_ties_awaiting_rails,_Alaska,_1915.jpg)

[Loel Shuler]

I hope nobody here missed Ralph's contribution of The Calf Path on the other forum. I fits this discussion.

[David Linwood]

Hi Nora,

Your interpretation of the phrase "bound too tightly" is essentially ok with me. It also indicates that "present actions may be too dependent on what came before".

Karla got married and moved away from Pellissippi State Community College, and I have lost track of her. I would have liked to invite her to join our happy few. A very clear, incisive mind.

David

[Nora]

(PS--as usual, I left out a "not": I meant to say "I'm NOT sure what David would say...." I make that mistake about once a day. I type the phrase, hear the "not" in my head and "see" it on the screen, only to go back later and discover I never typed it and thus never saw it either.....I wonder why?)

[Nora]

I'm sure what David would say to that, but I took the "too tightly" to mean, "without conscious awareness of the *why* of the measurement" which applies at each stage of the evolution. At no point in the process, apparently, did anyone say, "You know, we don't have to stick to this width for this new thing we are building." In this case, the "binding" held fast through centuries of otherwise changing technology. Whence "too tightly bound"--as in, come on....give a little!