spridgets
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: another dumb newbie question

To: "Jeff Boatright" <jboatri@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: another dumb newbie question
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:48:24 -0600
Cc: <spridgets@autox.team.net>
References: <a6.b9a92c0.27383419@aol.com> <3A06EBDA.9076C1AD@core.com><v0421010eb62cb14b2acd@[163.246.48.154]><0 23701c04826$391f65d0$33786520@avid.com> <v04210110b62cb84cd009@[163.246.48.154]>
I suspect both. I did ask him the question...as the RWA looked so much
better than the front and rear "fighting each other" in the original design
(since they were designed by 2 separate teams and merged together...


----- Original Message -----
From Jeff Boatright <jboatri at emory.edu>
To: Wm. Severin Thompson <wsthompson@thicko.com>
Cc: <spridgets@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: another dumb newbie question


> WST,
>
> Thanks, now I know- sort of. Was it that he thought it was
> structurally weaker with real-world ramifications, or was it just a
> standards issue that may or may not have had relevant consequences in
> an accident?
>
> Jeff
>
> At 1:17 PM -0600 11/6/00, Wm. Severin Thompson wrote:
> >According to Geoff Healey (yes, that Geoff, name dropper that I am...)
there
> >indeed was a measurable structural deficiency in the RWA for standards
> >purposes...
> >
> >WST
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
> Assistant Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
> Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis
> mailto:jboatri@emory.edu

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>