Oh Chris - sounds like you are a car guy too.
How many car guys like to muse over rod length to stroke ratios?
I love tinkering with engine designs.
Probably cause I never had to do it for a living.
My engine design hero is still Smokey Yunick.
That cat really did some plain and fancy engine stuff.
I also , loved to figure out why aircraft do what they do it.
Probably again, because I did not do it for a living.
It always puzzled me as a kid when I asked why planes flew - and the old Bournelli (sp) theory was rattled off as the "reason why".
Later I found out that the reason it never made sense to me is because it never made sense .
I could see that that the angle of attack of a flat board could provide lift.
So why all the mysterious jargon?
Why not keep the language simple?
Once I was intoduced to techno speak-I found it easy -and it made it convenient for engineers to speak with one another.
it did little tho, to relay info to the unannointed.
Back in the 60's - I had to work with our patent attorney, to make certain that my patents were correctly and plainly worded .
It was a great education.
This guy knew how to ask in a direct simple approach - all questions required to document and explain how a complex pneumatic control device operated.
He knew nothing about pneumatics - but knew how to relate information.
More importantly -how to relate relevant information.
( And this from an attorney!)
I get a bit puzzled - when I hear complex technical info put forth ,when a simple one will do the job.
In working with defense attornies - I learned early on - that if I could not make the information I was to offer, simple enough for the entire jury to grasp , then--
it not worth a damn.
Worse yet it added doubt and confusion.
And now that everyone has drifted off to sleep---- I will steal away---