From: null@void.com
"Jim Wilkins" writes:
> "Richard Smith" wrote in message news:m1seglexvi.fsf@void.com... Yup,
> r.c.m. does seem to be working
> and
> I seem to be fairly alright :-)
> Regards,
>
> --------------------------------
>
> I was concerned because you hinted you hadn't been.
I think I have learned a lot as I looked back on the summer of
(intended!) activities.
The impression was so little result for the time - and that was for sure
only my own fault (is that really true though?).
However life does teach you that fundamental realisations don't come
easily (cheaply) - they cost in pain almost always.
So you have a feeling there was a need to go through aggravations on a
path to realisations coming.
That much I was philosophical and reflective about.
Those reflections have ended-up reaching far back - a sort of grand
reconciliation.
The essence is that anything I want to do I have to do it all myself
in-house.
I previously asked about "machine tools" and you were all absolutely
emphaticly "yes!".
The reconciliation in the mind is that the mind which sees the "useful
projects" and the way to do them has learned from doing and driving
before. I have to do that doing. That it is unlikely that group
projects on my aspirations can deliver. You always end up having to
accept a compromise which has even more consequences than you could
visualise departing from the plan you had - with huge time-consequences
and waste of energy "flogging dead horses" and that energy not put to "I
got the steel in; I welded in my outbuilding; I ...".
Getting through my Doctorate after everything wrecked-up, working in
industrial plants when I got the chance, working in Turkey rescuing
regarding the welding aspect the 3rd bridge over the Bosphorus - all
involved team-work, collaboration and fostering a shared vision of a
shared endeavour.
That had supplanted the go-for-it of learning to repair motorcycles and
tinkering leading to what launched my Doctorate - I saw methods and I
did the pilot-tests which showed feasiblity then came up with the
"full-spec." methods which delivered the results.
But now things come a full circle.
Collaboration would be like
"Here's this chalcopyrite (the primary copper ore) 'which I found lying
in my garden as it just so happened' which I've broken-up - will you
grind it? Jim has got a lab. froth-floation machine. Bill has the
firebricks to build a furnace in his garden" - etc, etc.
Make my contribution "modular".
There are some others.
But broadly - reflecting on it all, there's a lot of things "dropping
into place", many of which give quite an upbeat self-validation.
I do see that what I have done has worked straight-off because I thought
it through. Did calculations I actually find quite nice - maybe what a
cross-word-puzzle person gets. Make a coffee and settle at my desk for
an enjoyable time-out picking through the challenge. But calculations
others find impossibly difficult. The insights and the means to do
them. "In the sum of everything" the methods I have built-up for
practical tasks do deliver. So for instance the rod-mill worked
first-off...
It would be demoralising going through try after try, none really
getting there for reasons you can't figure.
I see that without a specific objective to wake up to each morning time
slipped-away like sand pouring between parted fingers.
The "model" is the very productive time on building work on my home in
late summer into autumn. I knew every morning when I woke up exactly
what needed "hitting". Plus - I felt good!
So yes - keep "my" projects "modular" in that I contribute parts I do
the doing on.
I don't know if any of this makes sense...
Just a little other point.
We did have a disappointment in the late Spring. Knowing the reopening
local tin mines - tin is not distributed like most other minerals are -
would have a need for "core drilling", and having a machine left-over in
the hobby-mine from when it was a training mine - think like Colorado
School of Mines - we thought "this is it".
We could drag one of these down levels in existing / abandoned mines and
have a several-hundred metre start on "proper" drilling machines "at
grass". Plus, as the lode structures are usually parallel on the same
about 10deg to 20deg to vertical in the mineralised areas, we visualised
- and geologists confirmed - drilling "sideways" from existing levels
would in most cases give optimal angle on the suspected / likely
untapped lodes.
Yes it wouldn't meet "standards" particularly those for raising vast
amounts of money on stock-exchanges because the cores are too small -
but - you wouldn't pay for the "to spec." drilling until you damn' well
knew the assay, thickness and extent of the target lode.
(that's a lesson in science and in welding - don't pay for expensive
tests until you damn' well know what the answer will be)
However, the first reopening mine "wanted experience", and said
experienced person hired "our" core-catcher from our "group" but we were
otherwise shut-out. We all had to go other ways, getting our daily
bread elsewhere.
One would have thought a company would try to get more than one source
of a critical resource - in this case diamond core drilling teams - but
apparently not.
"All we had to do" was mess-around going through the learning-curve
diamond-drilling into "sterile" granite at the hobby mine. Yes we would
have had to make a few gifts towards the electricity bill for running the
compressor at-surface for our "pillocking-around" - it didn't half
produce a spike in the electricity consumption doing as much as we did.
But miners of the era until 1999 did say the only way to learn is
exactly what we were doing.
Even this though is part of the overal philosophical "fitting it all
together". Got to feature into plans that nothing will be "plain
sailing".
Well, big response.
Best wishes,
Rich S
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
