I tend to take it for granted that everyone, no matter how wise and
experienced, will from time to time commit some blooper, especially in
the context of casual conversation such as occurs on mailing lists
like this. Though social convention in many circles is such that such
bloopers are not acknowledged, they are nevertheless a reality; that
someone could avoid committing them is as improbable as that he could
write computer code without ever writing a single bug. But the fact
that one writes code that has bugs does not mean that one is incapable
of programming; not in the slightest, since that's the normal course
of programming: write code, try it out, find bugs, and fix them.
Likewise, here, there was no insinuation of any fundamental
incompetence, just of being a bit too sensitive to appearances.
So to any lurkers here who are giving Bill an unduly hard time over
this: you try showing up here (or in any other public forum) and
posting your thoughts about rocketry, and we'll see how well _you_ do
at avoiding mistakes in an environment where others have no reason to
pretend that a mistake is anything other than a mistake. And if he is
a bit too sensitive to appearances, it's you who are part of the
cause, so wipe the smugness off your faces.
As for literalism, though, I'm afraid it's rather important. For a
view from the outside, from people who envy us our precision in
language, see the essay "Can a Biologist Fix a Radio?":
https://www.cmu.edu/biolphys/deserno/pdf/can_a_biologist_fix_a_radio.pdf
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 05:08:45PM -0400, William Claybaugh wrote:
Norman:
I find that this post continues to have real effects in the world and so I
finf that I must reply more fully:
As you know, I have been flying supersonic rockets since before you were
born. Publically suggesting--as you have done--that I do not understand
the rocket equation seems--to me and to more than a few others--insulting,
inappropriate, and, frankly, the crazy talk of someone who lacks the
most basic of social understandings.
I have for decades referred to the natural log of mass ratio in the rocket
equation as an expotentional, as I was taught to do. You are the first and
only person who has ever misunderstood that statement.
I understand that poor wording on my part--as you should also know from my
previous posts, I am severely dyslexic--led you, given your evident "gift"
for literalism--to feel free to suggest something that has now proven to
be professionally damaging.
I am not given to being the sort of person who beats up on the disabled guy
(for obvious reasons); I had not previously understood that you are that
sort of person.
Bill
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016, Norman Yarvin <yarvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This isn't about academic pedantry, but about having language be
meaningful. In some contexts it is reasonable to lump together
exponentials and logarithms, but to call a logarithmic effect an
"exponential effect" would strip the phrase "exponential effect" of
all of its usefulness. In engineering, I've often seen people use the
phrase "exponential effect" or "exponential growth" for an effect that
is merely polynomial, not exponential: growth as x^2 or x^3, not as
e^x. That's a mild abuse of the phrase; using it for growth as log(x)
would wreck it entirely.
You aren't by any chance just embarrassed by getting backwards the
most basic equation in the business, and seeking to dart away under a
cloud of ink? I mean, your original message did say that mass
fraction had an "exponential effect" while Isp was "merely linear".
That this meant the latter was less important also seems to be how
others read your message.
Now, when one effect is linear and another logarithmic, it can still
be the case that it's more cost-effective to improve performance via
the latter effect; and this can easily apply in the case of Isp, which
is often exceedingly difficult to improve. But the costs don't change
the rocket equation, and it's worth getting the rocket equation right.
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 08:49:58PM -0400, William Claybaugh wrote:
Norman:are
When I was taught the exponential functions I was taught that the inverse
exponential was a part of that class. That is, logarithmic functions are
correctly generally referred to as "exponential" or--perhaps somewhat more
accurately--as "inverse exponentials".
I deduce that you disagree and instead think that logarithmic functions
not part of the class of exponential functions.<javascript:;>> wrote:
That is not my understanding.
Bill
On Monday, September 5, 2016, Norman Yarvin <yarvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 07:10:08AM -0400, William Claybaugh wrote:
Norm:
A logarithm is an exponential function.
Not when you're talking about an "exponential effect", it isn't. An
exponential effect is a big effect that grows strongly as you increase
the factor in question; a logarithmic effect is a wimpy one that gets
ever-wimpier as the factor in question increases. In particular,
here, a 10% increase in Isp buys you a 10% increase in delta-v,
whereas a 10% increase in m_initial/m_final buys you less, at least
for launcher-like values of that ratio. (If, say, it starts out as
10, a 10% increase buys you about 4% more delta-v; or if it starts out
as 5, a 10% increase buys you 5.6% more delta-v.)
