NTFDAY, no problem. As I said skepticism is healthy related to theory, but there is theory and then practitioners which may be different. The neat thing about computers is that you can test things. I used to require my students to check the computer output with a hand calculator and one of my best students told me there was something wrong in the 11th place of the computer output but we found his calculator was only a 10 digit calculator! How about those several failed Mars probes which crashed because engineers mixed up the units between metric and SAE! Again I recall discussions with NASA engineers who programmed satellites and once programs are burned in to ROM they better be EXACTLY correct because if just one symbol is wrong in the program the whole thing may malfunction. So what you say is correct in that the engineers have to be as exacting as the hardware to live up to the theory and that is not easy for analog humans. My point is that the level of theory is pretty good as far as accuracy (there is still a gap between quantum mechanics and gravitational theory) but THE HUMANS and COMPUTERS have to apply the theory correctly! There was an old story at the NASA-LRC wind tunnel that some Boeing engineers tested wing contours extensively and failed to meet their specs until an operator of the wind tunnel showed them how to doctor up the shape of the wing with a rubber mallet, but that may be just folklore. Still it means that there is always a conflict between new ideas and the broad experience of so-called "common sense"; I say compute it AND then test it (which is what is usually done these days)!

Then there is the problem of the generation gaps as when NASA goes through the whole Gemeni Program and the engineers and equipment get old, then a whole new crew has to start the next project with new equipment! This means there is an important link at the educational level which has to be done right or the next group has to reinvent the wheel all over again. To keep the discussion relative to automobiles on this Forum, I like the fact that Ford at least has a family member in the loop who knows and remembers the history of the company and with the recent problems GM is having, Ford may outlast GM?

Back to DIY painting. I realize I don't have the practice or skill to paint my car myself and although Brian did a great job on his yellow pickup he mentioned that he had done many previous paint jobs. The last time I did a home paint job in 1954 I spent about two weeks of afternoon sanding and leading in holes (with a BIG soldering iron, you may recall the Barris fad of "dechroming") and then got the paint job done by a moonlighting bodyshop man for $100 + about $30 for paint. I think the latest trend will mean that DIY/moonlight paint jobs will be less probable BUT my local shop charges $38/hour for the prep work so the next pattern may be for the DIY/hotrodder to do all the prep work and sanding and then let a shop do the painting in some "approved" paint booth. The more I think about the price and gloss of the Trinity-Rayflex acrylic the more I think I will go that way; they sure seem to have the outrageous colors that rodders like!

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder