Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BubbaFred who wrote (47979)	4/4/2004 10:12:44 PM
From: energyplay	Respond to of 74559

Good point on earth quakes. Both the Kobe and Northridge quakes were of a newer type and MUCH nastier than what was expected. I beleive about 10 years ago there were some earthquakes in central China in excess of 8-9 on Richter scale, acceleration exceeded 1 g, and people bounced off the ceiling of their houses.... In 7.6 Loma Prieta quake (SF BAY area, 1989) there were a number of places where 1 g was exceeded...

To: BubbaFred who wrote (47979)	4/4/2004 11:30:43 PM
From: RealMuLan	Respond to of 74559

Fred, you are wasting your time to argue with MQ. He must have eaten some mad dog meat during his vacation<g>, so started to bark (under a wrong tree) like a real mad dog right after he returns<g> what a pity!

To: BubbaFred who wrote (47979)	4/5/2004 7:20:19 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

Bubba, as I pointed out about New Zealand, <Our concrete professor in the early 1970s thought that there could be a problem with buildings in Wellington, a major earthquake region, in the event of a decent earthquake as he didn't think the curing process was correctly handled in the rush to get the buildings up quickly. Concrete needs to stay wet to strengthen and the process takes weeks, not days. Membranes are sprayed on to maintain moisture. > So you have misunderstood again! <you talk like all buildings in NZ and your most highly esteemed elsewheres are constructed like the Pentagon.> As you can now see, not at all do I think NZ buildings can take a big earthquake hit. But they are better than they were 30 years ago. China looked to me to be using old-style construction techniques though they probably have fairly up to date design processes. The police station in Auckland was tested by me for leaking in 1968 and the concrete around the windows was honeycombed. It was obviously quite badly done. I ran around on scaffolding squirting a hose to test for leaks. It was hopeless. I don't know what they did to fix it, but the building is still there. I don't know how well it would handle a good earthquake. I wouldn't want to bet my life on it. When I worked for Castrol, I spent a day in the head office in Wellington. I wouldn't have worked there as it looked to me totally inadequate to handle a decent earthquake. A week ago, I sat in my cousin's apartment, in a four storey olde building, which had been strengthened with steel which was visible. It is an old brick building. I said to him that the steel didn't look adequate to do the job and the attachment to the bricks seemed nominal. He said it had engineering approval and was done not many years ago. I would not live in that building. Perhaps it wouldn't totally fall down in a pile of rubble, but I guarantee there will be major structural damage and the building will be removed after a good earthquake. I've crushed a lot of concrete cylinders, done a lot of slump and other quality tests. I know what you are saying is right. My guess is that China's construction industry is about where New Zealand's was 20 years ago. Now our construction is much more lego style, with off-site manufacture, clipped together on site. I'd bet on the modern buildings more than the old ones, though there's always the risk that they are cutting corners in design to use less material. As I said, I'm out of date on how they do things now, but it looks a lot better than what I was involved with. Yes, I do fear the infrequent events. Namely and most particularly volcanoes and bolide-induced tsunamis. I live away from potential sudden eruptions and 65 metres above sea level, [I'd prefer 500 metres but I'm taking the chance for now]. I did stay in the mouth of Taupo's crater a week ago, so I'm not completely terrified. I looked on it as the equivalent of parachuting or visiting Baghdad [daring and a bit of scary fun with a small risk of death]. <Do you think China and Chinese people don't have any compunction at all about life and death? > No. Where did you get that idea? Regarding your other wild generalisations about China's engineers, I suspect they are much like other engineers though the context they are working in means their construction standards are probably not up to those of Singapore, New Zealand, the USA and Japan. In most places around the world, bribery and corruption are all too common and safety standards are circumvented in the interests of getting money and avoiding hassles and problems. Consider o-ring management and foam impact in Space Shuttles for extreme examples of mismanagement. Carelessness, foolishness, greed, fear of failure and other things also lead to failures. After the failure, the cry goes up to find out why it happened and make sure it never happens again [a cliche that should not be used]. I used to sit in large commercial aircraft, amazed that the cockpit door was open to me to simply stand up, step inside and take over. Lighting of fires in aircraft was allowed. Carrying of litres of highly flammable liquid was and still is allowed in large glass bottles which would make much better weapons than granny's nail clippers. Smash the bottles against each other, light the liquid and there'd be a good fire. Then use the jagged ends as weapons, the necks of the bottles being good handles. Amazing and negligent of airlines to allow such things to happen. I agree that I probably shouldn't write things which to me seem obviously silly and a joke because they are so ridiculous, then mix them with things which I'm serious about, because many people take the obviously ridiculous things seriously and even agree with them. Look on it as a game to see which things I really think are right. Much of what I write is just ideas up for discussion, to see what other people think. It's a foolish person who doesn't harbour doubts about their most closely held ideas. After a few decades, most previously cherished ideas have suffered at least dings, if not total destruction, so ideas now closely believed must be assigned some doubt since the now defunct previous sound ideas seemed as solid as those now held. Which is not to say that ideas shouldn't be held and acted on. They have to be acted on as doing nothing is not an option. Nihilism is not a way to get to an old age. So we all adopt positions and hope for the best, keeping a weather eye out for incoming problems and data which shows the position is wrong. Being prepared to abandon a position at very short notice is a survival trait. Which is not to say one should give up at the first hint of a problem. Persevering through difficulty is also a survival trait. But ignoring actual new data proving failure is NOT a survival trait. Jay is ready and waiting for the opposite of what I think will happen. Both are ready to change their position at the drop of a hat. Both are sure they are right, but are watching closely in case they are wrong. "Abandon Ship" is top of mind. Lifeboats are close at hand. Jay instead has scuba tanks deposited in an unseen escape route, with loot stashed in many places so any one destruction doesn't get the lot. Enough rant for now! Mqurice