Engine Stress, Power and Fuel Mixture Management

[Petehdgs]

10 hours ago, 201er said:

Even when it contradicts manufacturers recommendations? You take responsibility for that?

I do not recommend going against manufacturers recommendations, or recommendations printed in the POH.  I encourage you to follow them. 

[EricJ]

7 hours ago, Petehdgs said:

Ok.  Consider me properly admonished.  Perhaps the word livid was too strong a word.  I apologize for that.  Perhaps I really don't know what I am doing when it comes to writing.  "The figures are a mess"  doesn't really give me very much to go on.

There was a full paragraph of specific details that immediately followed that statement.

I'm just giving feedback, which is, as previously described by others, a normal part of the process in developing technical papers.   It's a productive process that improves your work if you use it.   I'm not livid with anybody because there's nothing to be livid about.

Figure numbers are important for quite a few numbers of reasons, and they're pretty painless to add.   Most word processing programs will automatically caption and number figures because it's a commonly used feature.   As an example of the case in point, in paragraph 15 you say "Look at the RED BOX for 75% load."   Next to that paragraph is a figure that says "65% Power".   Where is the figure for "75% load"?   There's a figure that says "75% Power" on it much further up in the document, but it's not clear whether that's what you're referring to or whether there is a "75% load" figure elsewhere.  Power and load are often not the same thing, so relying on the text which continually refers to load percentages to find graphs that are labelled with power percentages adds another potential layer of confusion.  Figure numbers makes identifying and locating figures far easier for the reader and referring to them far easier for anybody with questions.

Likewise labelling axes and adding units when quantities are displayed make it clear what you are trying to convey.   You say certain figures (referenced by the paragraphs in which they are intoduced, which is unfortunately somewhat ambiguous), are precision figures by which one can make precise measurements.   Unfortunately, the axes aren't labelled and the quantities do not have units specified, so while one already experienced in the area may be able to infer what was intended, one can never quite be sure because the information is missing.  Adding labels and units is fairly painless, removes the ambiguity, clarifies what you intended to convey, and makes the information more useful for readers.    The red box figures that were previously published in Sport Aviation were shown together there as a single figure in order to show how the box shrinks and disappears with a reduction in power, and the ambiguity in the horizontal axes was explained in the accompanying text.   In this case the figures are separated and the explanation is not included, so the lack of labels, units, and explanation for the horizontal axes becomes a bit of a mystery.

I suspect some readers will think that you are abusing the copyright system.   You imply a sort of license agreement in paragraph 45 and while the terms are not unlike those used in some free software licenses, attempting to apply them to a written work may be construed by some as attempting to circumvent existing federal laws on such things as Fair Use and other rights.  This may be particularly problematic since your document contains figures for which you very clearly do not own the copyright, so it appears that you may be intending to apply unusual licensing terms (and especially broader licensing terms by offering free distribution) to those items that it is not clear that you own the rights, and may not be in the interest of the owners of those copyrights.  Usually use of an item copyrighted by others is handled with a disclaimer of "Figures x, y, and z Copyright Fizzbucket Corporation and Used with Permission", or simply by reproducing it yourself as an original expression of the figure, or some other recognized method, but in this case there is no indication of permission from the existing copyright holders.   On the contrary you assert copyright claims on every page and original figure, and also with assertion of a specific license agreement that you wish to control all of the content in ways that are a bit unusual.   The easiest work-arounds are usually to indicate that you have obtained permission for use (and in this case also permission to assert your license terms on their work), or just to create new versions of the same charts.   Many of us have been there before, and I got called out for making a public presentation with new data plotted over somebody else's original chart after having used the same chart internally for months prior...somebody noticed right away, and I'd been using it long enough internally that it just didn't occur to me at the time that I needed to update it before presenting it publicly.   It was a fairly easy error to correct, though.   I wasn't offering free licensing of the other person's work, though, which is a complication here.

You're free to use or ignore or disdain or whatever you want to do with this advice.   I offer it only as constructive criticism.   I suggest contacting an Intellectual Property attorney for details on copyright assertion, licensing terms, and attribution and permission for use of other's work.

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by EricJ

[Petehdgs]

23 minutes ago, EricJ said:

There was a full paragraph of specific details that immediately followed that statement.

I'm just giving feedback, which is, as previously described by others, a normal part of the process in developing technical papers.   It's a productive process that improves your work if you use it.   I'm not livid with anybody because there's nothing to be livid about.

Figure numbers are important for quite a few numbers of reasons, and they're pretty painless to add.   Most word processing programs will automatically caption and number figures because it's a commonly used feature.   As an example of the case in point, in paragraph 15 you say "Look at the RED BOX for 75% load."   Next to that paragraph is a figure that says "65% Power".   Where is the figure for "75% load"?   There's a figure that says "75% Power" on it much further up in the document, but it's not clear whether that's what you're referring to or whether there is a "75% load" figure elsewhere.  Power and load are often not the same thing, so relying on the text which continually refers to load percentages to find graphs that are labelled with power percentages adds another potential layer of confusion.  Figure numbers makes identifying and locating figures far easier for the reader and referring to them far easier for anybody with questions.

Likewise labelling axes and adding units when quantities are displayed make it clear what you are trying to convey.   You say certain figures (referenced by the paragraphs in which they are intoduced, which is unfortunately somewhat ambiguous), are precision figures by which one can make precise measurements.   Unfortunately, the axes aren't labelled and the quantities do not have units specified, so while one already experienced in the area may be able to infer what was intended, one can never quite be sure because the information is missing.  Adding labels and units is fairly painless, removes the ambiguity, clarifies what you intended to convey, and makes the information more useful for readers.    The red box figures that were previously published in Sport Aviation were shown together there as a single figure in order to show how the box shrinks and disappears with a reduction in power, and the ambiguity in the horizontal axes was explained in the accompanying text.   In this case the figures are separated and the explanation is not included, so the lack of labels, units, and explanation for the horizontal axes becomes a bit of a mystery.

I suspect some readers will think that you are abusing the copyright system.   You imply a sort of license agreement in paragraph 45 and while the terms are not unlike those used in some free software licenses, attempting to apply them to a written work may be construed by some as attempting to circumvent existing federal laws on such things as Fair Use and other rights.  This may be particularly problematic since your document contains figures for which you very clearly do not own the copyright, so it appears that you may be intending to apply unusual licensing terms (and especially broader licensing terms by offering free distribution) to those items that it is not clear that you own the rights, and may not be in the interest of the owners of those copyrights.  Usually use of an item copyrighted by others is handled with a disclaimer of "Figures x, y, and z Copyright Fizzbucket Corporation and Used with Permission", or simply by reproducing it yourself as an original expression of the figure, or some other recognized method, but in this case there is no indication of permission from the existing copyright holders.   On the contrary you assert copyright claims on every page and original figure, and also with assertion of a specific license agreement that you wish to control all of the content in ways that are a bit unusual.   The easiest work-arounds are usually to indicate that you have obtained permission for use (and in this case also permission to assert your license terms on their work), or just to create new versions of the same charts.   Many of us have been there before, and I got called out for making a public presentation with new data plotted over somebody else's original chart after having used the same chart internally for months prior...somebody noticed right away, and I'd been using it long enough internally that it just didn't occur to me at the time that I needed to update it before presenting it publicly.   It was a fairly easy error to correct, though.   I wasn't offering free licensing of the other person's work, though, which is a complication here.

You're free to use or ignore or disdain or whatever you want to do with this advice.   I offer it only as constructive criticism.   I suggest contacting an Intellectual Property attorney for details on copyright assertion, licensing terms, and attribution and permission for use of other's work.

 

Eric

Your points are well taken.  I'll take it down and consider your points.  

[MikeOH]

3 hours ago, Petehdgs said:

Eric

Your points are well taken.  I'll take it down and consider your points.  

You are a patient man.

I've been silently following this chit-storm and have been pretty disgusted at the crap you've been handed.

You, as an admitted amateur, took considerable effort to put this together and decided to share it. My hat's off to you.

My take away: damn if I'm EVER going to share anything I write.  Not worth the grief trying add something to the group.

[ilovecornfields]

17 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

You are a patient man.

I've been silently following this chit-storm and have been pretty disgusted at the crap you've been handed.

You, as an admitted amateur, took considerable effort to put this together and decided to share it. My hat's off to you.

My take away: damn if I'm EVER going to share anything I write.  Not worth the grief trying add something to the group.

Thank you.