Muzzle Not The Ox

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic
You have the 1) Diesel can be MU'd, steam cannot, 2) Diesel uses a lot less fuel, 3) steam pounded the rails, 4) steam had the water supply problem, 5) Diesel took less maintenance, 6) railroads beat their steam locomotives to death in WW-II traffic surge and were ready to replace the whole fleet.

I almost never see numbers in support of contentions like this, even though railroads were and are a data rich source of detailed information.

A couple of points.

1) Steam can be mu'd. Coal or fuel oil, an automatic stoker or feed is electronically controlled.

2) Well, diesel certainly uses a more expensive fuel.

3) Egineers of the era found that diesel electrics were harder on the physical plant than steam, not enough to be statistically significant in terms of maintenance requirements but that offers the converse: maintenance requirements did not go down after dieselization; rather, the ICC imposed lower speed limits on comparable track as dieselization proceeded.

4) "Steam had the water supply problem." This is one that the younger railfans almost always fasten on: railroads could save on all that water. The argument always intrigued me. Of all the things killing the railroads at the time, I have never found in the historical record that the high cost of water was one of them. But this argument is almost always cited in support of dieselization.

This is one of those statistical allegations that 1) never seems to have a statistic to back it up (that is, it is taken as a transcendent truth), and 2) reference is never, and I mean never, made to the "other" companion fluid statistic -- lubricants.

Here is what a sample Class I railroad looked like for road train service, which was fully dieselized by 1957:

.. Year ... Water $... Lubricant $ .. Total

1945..... $729,000...$392,000 ....$1.1 million
1957..... $136,000...$1,042,000..$1.2 million

The argument, in it's fullest light, suggests that water from a well trackside at Mobridge was a terrible burden on the Company, but that expensive lubricants shipped in from East Texas or Saudi Arabia represented a welcome relief from that onerous servitude.

5) "Diesel took less maintenance." I did my first hp maintenance curve thirty two years ago this summer. I was completely surprised by what I saw. The cost per diesel-electric horsepower was substantially higher over the economic service life of the machine than for either straight electric or steam. The Diesel-electric cost about three times as much per hp as the straight electric, and about twice as much as equivalent steam.

And, there had not been a substantive change from the Baldwin figures of 1935, from H.F. Brown's study of 1960, and to our data through 1973.

To me, that signified that the maintenance cost is inherent in the design and could not be remedied by further application.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

I disagree with the assessment that wartime traffic beat steam to death.

I bet the Nation's War Traffic must have seen the highest tonnage ever asked of railroading, steam or desiel.

[wallyworld]

I dont consider the death knell of steam to be an either or proposition with maintenance on one side and labor on the other. There were many facets of the equation. One was the "fordization," of an automotive maker crossing into railroad manufacturing territory bringing with them-one size fits all-less customization-an early form of modular constuction-off the shelf parts-fewer specialty suppliers et al. Another was less pounding of reciprocal thrust on track- elimination of superelevation-fewer servicing facilities to maintain and crew. We went from the Age of Steam to The Age of Oil to the Synthetic Age. I think we lost more than we gained.

[Paul Milenkovic]

Well, I guess I do want to beat that dead horse!

I really think it was the maintenance costs.

You have the 1) Diesel can be MU'd, steam cannot, 2) Diesel uses a lot less fuel, 3) steam pounded the rails, 4) steam had the water supply problem, 5) Diesel took less maintenance, 6) railroads beat their steam locomotives to death in WW-II traffic surge and were ready to replace the whole fleet.

All of these points had answers or lack of answers in some degree. But I still think that steam is maintenance-expensive -- the prep to get a steam loco going from cold start, the handling and facilities for water-coal-ash, the boiler inspections and safe operation of a boiler (related to a vapor cycle and working fluid phase change -- gas cycles can blow a cylinder or a turbo and it is usual not a fatal accident), the tradeoff between putting money into water treatment or cleaning out the boiler, cleaning the flues, replacing flues.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

Labor intensive in terms of manpower.

The five man crew requirement made railroading labor intensive, not steam.

Regarding, maintenance claims, the average steam engine was 27 years old in 1948. I wonder how much labor would be involved if the average diesel electric was 27 years old. I would ask it as a question, but notwithstanding strong claims made for dieselization, it is very hard to get an informed answer.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[wallyworld]

Labor intensive in terms of manpower. However, there is a point beyond economics. Running steam was when an engineer's relationship counted with his mechcanical charge in the sense it was more art than science. A man with good ears could hook up and cutoff just by the sound and pitch of the exhaust.You could call it craftsmanship. You look at those long gone faces in Winston's Links books and you can see assurance and pride.Teamwork between the fireman and engineer had to be coordinated in sync. A good team would appear to be psychic. Not to take away from present day crews but men mattered more than technology- no radios-no wheelslip control-no dynamic brakes- no hard drives-no software-rarely had in cab signals-add it up.I am not a Luddite but we lost something more valuable than we gained- a lost world of interface with what we create. I talked to some former steam men-they didnt miss leaning out a cab looking down a boiler barrel peering into the darkness looking for a signal or a hoop or the heat of a firebox in summer-but when I heard them talk, the way they talked and sometimes they said it was like nothing else and in their own way, it was like they lost a freind when the diesels came.My great uncle Jack fired for the SP-left the road in mid age to become a wealthy businessman in Burbank-but when he talked about steam-he got a far way look in his eyes-thats all he would talk about much to the consternation of my grandfather but to my young delight. He never talked about his business acumen-wore fine suits-it seemed he was prouder of being a good fireman than a self made success. I made a simple mistake only once. I asked him about diesels. He got red faced and huffed and puffed and finally spitted out his reply, "Streetcars!" I never asked again.

The Office
http://railroad.union.rpi.edu/rolling-stock/Steam/Steam-backhead-Hudson-5-38-RME.jpg
Fastest Steam Locomotives
http://www.germansteam.co.uk/FastestLoco/fastestloco.html#18

[timz]

Anyone that wants to Google that Baldwin VP-- don't forget to check the spelling first.

[Paul Milenkovic]

The Baldwin fellow makes some interesting arguments. Electrification didn't make inroads against steam, Diesel-electric is like electrification, ergo, Diesel won't make inroads against steam. History showed that while Europe went electric, Diesel actually rolled back what little electrification there was in the U.S. (including Conrail Dieselizaing freight ops on the NEC and Amtrak unable to sell the E60s for freight service). He also argues for favorable maintenance costs for steam -- my understanding is that fuel costs (thermal efficiency and all of that) was not the big issue with steam that people think it to be, but maintenance was a biggy. The railroads learned how to maintain Diesels economically while steam had its boiler inspections and flue cleanings and boiler washings and so on to deal with.

The basic thermodynamics we are talking about in steam vs Diesel for steam vs anything else is a two-phase working fluid thermodynamic cycle vs a single-phase fluid cycle. La locomotif a vapeur (excuse my French spelling) implies a liquid phase and a vapor phase to make it go. The big advantage of such vapor cycle engines is the compression work is done on the liquid phase (the injector) and is energy-wise for free. The big advantage of gas cycle engines (Diesel, gasoline engine, gas turbine) is that you do away with that troublesome liquid phase (foaming, boiler scaling, boiler explosions) but then you have to provide a tremendous amount of mechanical work for the gas compressor -- if you go positive displacement (pistons) you have to deal with wear and power assembly changeouts, if you go turbines, you have to cycle a lot of the power taken from your turbine back into the compressor, and you can only do that efficiently over narrow speed and power ranges.

People talk about the 4-unit, 5400 HP FT demonstrator as the death knell of steam. With 16 powered axles it could out pull any single steam engine, of which the max powered axles was 10 if you consider the 2-10-10-2 Mallet. At 5400 HP, it was in the league of the highest HP steam engines. But you had to consider that the 4-unit FT consist had 64 cylinders, 4 generators, and 16 traction motors - quite the complex rig -- and that you had to observe minimum speeds and short-term ratings. A steam locomotive might slip, but it was never going to burn anything out from lugging.

Steam perhaps departed US railroading before its time, but the river towboats are all Diesel (Alco's and EMD's), and steam has been pushed out of ocean going ships by these giant marine low-speed Diesels or by gas turbines for Navy ships. The electric power utility industry is a coal-burning steam holdout, but there is talk of onsite coal gasification feeding aviation-derived gas turbines (still use steam for the "bottoming cycle" off the gas turbine exhaust heat).

Air conditioning is a holdout of vapor cycle -- a couple of years ago I sunk 900 bucks into my household central air on leak maintenance (related to closed cycle, vapor cycle, and the environmental concerns of refrigerant). It took two service calls to correct the leaks which included two full drills of refrigerant drainage, recovery, and refill, and they charged me an arm an a leg to replace the filter dryer (kind of like the oil filter in the refrigerant line) and add a liquid sight glass (prophylatic measures I had asked for) while they had the line drained along with a replacement solenoid (they had suggested was the source of the leak).

What I am saying is that vapor cycle has certain mechanical advantages but it incurs a lot of maintenance headaches, whether it is a steam locomotive of a home airconditioner. And now they are pushing ground-source heat pumps -- the same sort of maintenance headaches of central air to be enjoyed in the dead of winter when you need heat. Just as the steam locomotive was replaced by gas-cycle power, I would gladly go with gas cycle A/C for home and car.

[TomDiehl]

The speed had little to do with the survival (or lack thereof) of the passenger trains as we heard or read about them in the pre-WW2 era. Several factors, all leading to one item, is basically what killed the majority of the passenger trains. The item: the privately owned automobile. After WW2, many GI's came home from the war, and the US had a huge wartime industrial base that suddenly had nothing to build for. The changeover to a peacetime industry brought us the heavy equipment, to build the roads, the drilling and refining equipment to bring us cheap fuel, and the industry to build the automobile itself. Plus all the ex-GI's are now employed in these industries, making these things, and making enough money to afford them.

The main factor after this that hurt the passenger trains is that they ran on schedule in given corridors. It stood little or no chance against the convenience of walking out to your driveway, starting your car, and going where you wanted to go, when you wanted to go there.

[wallyworld]

I think the evolution of rail passenger travel entered an ice age of sorts, where it was halted, in other words, with the advent of the public interstate highway system as well as
the growth of airline carriers. Steam certainly was capable of pulling heavy consists at what then were considered high speeds-but then so were the diesels.

[Anonymous]

Isn't it possible that the rail passenger concept did not survive because the travel speeds did not keep up with societal evolution? Remember, it was back in the 1930's when talk of 100 mph travel was commonplace, while most autos and trucks were still traveling 40 to 50 mph. Railroads had the speed advantage, but lost it when dieselization took hold. Lugging power isn't a necessity for passenger travel.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

Not implying that diesel wouldn't have won the day. The speech is from 1935 with improvements in diesels to come also. What's interesting to me is this is pretty much rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Passenger trains didn't survive the bottom line, and a whole lot of freight, too. The climate was not favorable to railroads.

As Ed has commented before, as long as there's heavy and bulky and dangerous stuff that needs to be moved, the railroad will hang in there. And lines west of the Mississippi have the advantage of great distances.

Blinkerd's speech must be considered in its context, that of the very time and existing technology, and industry climate in 1935. He was definitely there to sell the steam technology that was Baldwin's bread and butter, but I think he was also testing the water to see what the reaction was and what was being considered in the area of diesel locomotives, but in the light of History, it is a tremendously interesting insight by an industry insider.
I have always understood that the Passenger train in any format was as Tom stated doomed by Standards of Railroad Accounting. It was the practice of charging the infrastructure costs to the Passenger Departments, and running the Freight Ops as simply a bonus activity between the passenger trains, where the Freight activities bore little of the cost of infrastructure, that doomed the passenger train to be cut by the fact it was never going to be a profit center, only a burden on the bottom line, thus a prime location to cut costs and expenses.
iF anybody can correct this impression, I would apperciate it, if it is wrong or mistaken.
Thanks, Sam

[wallyworld]

In the earlier days diesel traction motors had a tendency to fry when lugging, which, in some cases,prolonged to some degree, the coal roads staying with steam especially when your dragging a long, heavy string of coal through a loader. It depends on the time frame thats being referred to.Generally, and its tough to generalize- steam locos were purpose built, which was considered a drawback when there were a greater variety of consists and consequently- speeds aka passenger runs. After these went south, that was a moot point. In late era steam, in many cases they had greater efficency at higher speeds. The stillborn, overly far reaching ACE concept had alot if not most of the issues with steam, as it existed in the past, addressed, but only in theory. The short answer to your question to the best of my knowledge is no, probably not. The fuel efficency and enviromental impact of steam has vastly improved due to Porta, Wardale, etc but that is another story entirely.

[edblysard]

Pretty obvious they don't want the time sensitive freight, other than the container, and havent in a long time.

Ed

[Anonymous]

It is interesting that the *arguments* in favor of diesel over steam were/are not necessarily germaine to one over the other. Bi-directionality, MU-ability, single person control, standardization of parts, et al, all were as conceivably possible for steam as well as diesel. The real comparisons lay in relative operational performances, and if I remember correctly from the Steam vs Diesel thread, the advantage of diesel over steam was in low speed lugging power, while the advantage of steam over diesel was in higher speed horsepower.

So, is there a strong correlation between the current modus operandi of 25 mph averaga velocity of today's railroads and the changeover to diesel and it's superior lugging power? If steam had progressed past the idiosyncratic characterizations of *lacking* multiple unit operation, *needing* water towers, coaling towers, et al, would the railroad industry today have a higher average velocity? Would the shorter, faster aka D&RGW model be predominant over the longer slower model?

Would railroads own a greater market share of the time sensitive freight market from the truckers?

[wallyworld]

Safety Valve- A suggestion-if you are into this topic one of the most interesting railroading books Ive ever read as Black Gold-Black Diamonds. The description below is from the Colorado Railroad Museum on line store. They have it in stock and its a good cause for a donation.


BLACK GOLD - BLACK DIAMONDS: The Pennsylvania Railroad and Dieselization
By Eric Hirsimaki. The story of steam, electric and diesel-electric locomotives on the Pennsylvania Railroad from 1915 to mid-1947. Many new facts are brought forth, such as the M1's 3-cylinder 2-10-2 that became the famous I1's 2-10-0; proposed steam, diesel, electric and turbine locomotives; why there were only 139 GG1s; PRR "Big Boys", and other such interesting topics as its McKeen car, gasoline-electric cars, street switchers and other odd pieces of motive power.

[Anonymous]

The bottom line of money I think is a monster for the railroads. What happens when these units get worn out and the cycle repeats?

I can understand and relate to the older a engine gets the worse the shop down time and expenses accumulate. I take a little bit of experience with a older truck that was constantly on the verge of breaking down and cutting into my ability to make a mile loaded because it was always in the shop.

I would pester the office saying why not lease a newer truck or assign a fre***ruck to the job so I can stay the heck out of that shop and actually run loads. Thier response?

"Too expensive" My answer? I moved to another employer who had newer trucks and not as much lost downtime. Now I wonder what is more expensive? Fixing old stuff or replacing it all.

During this person's speech he basically offered to take orders on that nice little switcher engine for half off retail price. Does anyone know if the audience did take him up on the offer? Or perhaps special ordered bigger engines for steam work on the main?

What else do we know about this part of the early 1900's when desiels was all fancy and new-fangled?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dave e

Costs eliminated with the end of steam:
water tanks, track pans
coal handling, dozens of cars a day for a major terminal
boiler washouts every month
blacksmiths, boilermakers, machinists
ash handling and disposal
standby costs, hostlers & firemen to keep steam up when not on the road
elimination of intermediate engine terminals (Crestline OH on PRR)

How much do you think the savings amounted to in numbers, dollars, perhaps percentages?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Costs eliminated with the end of steam:
water tanks, track pans
coal handling, dozens of cars a day for a major terminal
boiler washouts every month
blacksmiths, boilermakers, machinists
ash handling and disposal
standby costs, hostlers & firemen to keep steam up when not on the road
elimination of intermediate engine terminals (Crestline OH on PRR)

Despite all that, I mourned steam for years.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68
One number that definitely fell to the Diesel's favor was the drastic reduction of labor necessary.

What are the numbers?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Not implying that diesel wouldn't have won the day. The speech is from 1935 with improvements in diesels to come also. What's interesting to me is this is pretty much rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Passenger trains didn't survive the bottom line, and a whole lot of freight, too. The climate was not favorable to railroads.

As Ed has commented before, as long as there's heavy and bulky and dangerous stuff that needs to be moved, the railroad will hang in there. And lines west of the Mississippi have the advantage of great distances.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lonewoof

The railroads all got sold a bill of goods when they Dieselized?

Yes. And No. As Ed pointed out, MUing for Diesels may have been a ways out yet when Blinkerd gave his talk, but we still don't have it for steam. Granted, there is little reason given current technology, but you'd think some tinkerer would have at least played with the idea.

There was a significant period of transition between steam and Diesel. If the railroads wanted to figure out the fallacy of the Diesel promoters claims, they had plenty of time to do it. One number that definitely fell to the Diesel's favor was the drastic reduction of labor necessary. Once issues such as the cooling system previously mentioned were resolved, about the only thing keeping the fireman on locomotives was labor agreements. And while it can be argued that manpower is still necessary to maintain a Diesel locomotive, the amount is vastly less than is required for steam.

Blinkerd's own example of a steamer that did not require a fireman could have been a harbinger of things to come.

Had steam been able to successfully duplicate the factors that favored Diesels, it would likely still be around.

[edblysard]

And keep in mind no matter how eloquent the man was, his primary reason for his speech was to sell the steam locomotive, after all, his company was still focused on that as it's primary product.

Could steam have survived as the major motive power after the 1950's?
Most likely not, unless radical changes in it design allowed it to be MUed as easily as a diesel electric, and all of the motive power was standardized with interchangeable parts...steam locomotives still required "custom" or one off parts to be made for each locomotive.

Keep in mind the era this speech is made...although I have no doubts the concepts of MUed units, interchangeable parts and standard designs and controls were around, their introduction to the product was still years away and it was still in the best interest of Mr. Blinkard and his company to "sell" steam.

Did railroads throw away machines that still had a considerable service life left in them to "modernize" with diesels?
Sure, but all consumers do the same thing...anyone who buys a new car most likely isn’t buying it because their old car is really "broken" beyond repair...but because they want a new car, and rationalize reasons to purchase one.

Add in the fact that quite soon railroads grasped the concept that a diesel electric runs just as well no matter which way it faces, (steam really doesn’t) that parts could be mass produced and stocked on hand as opposed to made one at a time for each locomotive, and that even with the rise in fuel cost, the production and world wide use of petroleum products would continue to expand, so fuel cost percentage wise would remain about the same...then having a locomotive you could assign anywhere on your system, and crew with fewer employees, repair at almost any shop, with parts you buy and stock, instead of make...and you could add as many together (MU)as you needed for any particular assignment, then steam as the motive power of choice becomes a moot concept...no matter how you massage the numbers, it is flat out cheaper to run the diesel overall, and the bottom line is the god of all railroads.
Ed

[PBenham]

Two points, first Binkerd was speaking at a time when Steam was far and away the choice for all but those railroads that had the $ or, lack there of that made them take the risks early technology persented to the industry then ,as now.Then there were those that had to comply with unreasonable local smoke ordinances. Diesels were still very experimental, and not as reliable as an overall "group" as steam. Some diesels were quite good in 1938,(Alco high hoods) some weren't.(NH's temperamental "Comet".) Second, labor did not have any reason to fear dieselization, since the early yard units and passenger units had manual coolant temperature controls, meaning that a crew working on an E3 or DL109 had to include a fireman, who would go back and turn on/ off the units cooling fans, since thermostatically controlled cooling systems were very expensive then, and were so critical for the upcoming war effort, that civilian sales of such components, were out if the question until after VE day, and then, still restricted to crucial applications. EMD didn't offer automatic cooling fan control until 1948 (F3,BL2) as I understand it, and then, not on all models! (SW1, NW2, and E7! did not have this feature) Please some one, set the record straight on this. Alco had such controls on FA/B1s and PAs from the start, Baldwin left it up to the customer, until the AS16/416/616,RT624,S12, RF16 "line" in 1950. But there were earlier units with such controls, but at an extra cost to the buyers. Fairbanks-Morse had this feature from the end of WWII restrictions, and then offered a retrofit kit for owners of early H10-44s.

[lonewoof]

Isn't the gist of this speech the same thing Michael Sol has been saying? The railroads all got sold a bill of goods when they Dieselized?

[wallyworld]

Blinkerd was an iconoclast, so was Porta. I remember a regular feature of Trains was a column entitled "The Professional Iconoclast." I believe the author's name was John Kneiling (sp?). He advocated some radical theory of railroading called unit trains, trains that only carried one commodity. These iconoclasts might be wrong and they might be right, but they were never dull. They made me challenge my assumptions which always made things interesting.

[samfp1943]

This article" Muzzle not the Ox" ought to be required reading for railfans. It would certainly alter alot of perspectives and change some preconceived notions where steam vs. diesel is concerned..
http://yardlimit.railfan.net/baldwindiesels/ox/page11.html

Sam

[Anonymous]

A great speech filled with many lessons.

Qoute
"Most of the fleets of passenger locomotives in this country — largely Pacifies — were designed about midway in this process. They were supposed to be adequate for 10-car trains when the average weight per car was 65 or 70 tons. Today the average weight of these cars is around 85 tons. Instead of getting ten 70-ton cars, these locomotives are given eleven, twelve, thirteen or fourteen of these 85-ton cars. So instead of having 700 tons in dead weight back of the tender, these locomotives now have 1000, 1100, 1200 tons. " End Qoute

[samfp1943]

Interesting perspective for a "steam" man in the face of an onrushing new technology..The Diesel era, Robert Blinkerd, certainly makes a good argument for then current and future steam technology. A single engineer operated locomotive w/o a fireman. The Unions would have probably screamed like wounded animals had it moved into the real world of Classed railroads.

" Manufacturers, eager to sell this new type of locomotive, made studies of existing operations. On many of these operations they found obsolete steam locomotives 25 to 30—and I have even seen them 40— years old. Some of these manufacturers were not aware of the fact that maintenance costs rise rapidly with age. All that they saw was that in the first year of the operation of a new Diesel locomotive they could make a substantial saving over the sums that had been spent in maintaining obsolete steam locomotives. And so they claimed for the Diesel locomotive a saving in operating cost which arose— not out of the Diesel itself—but out of the substitution of a new for an old locomotive. And so I suggest to you that whenever you set out to study the economy of installing Diesels, the greatest safeguard that you can have is to first set up what modern properly designed steam power will do in that operation. If then the Diesel still indicates substantial savings, and those savings would pay a higher return upon the larger investment in the Diesel, then you have a case for Diesel application. " Robert Blinkerd quote from the article Muzzle not the Ox
Thanks ww for sharing this.
Sam

[wallyworld]

He certainly was a compelling and well spoken man.I am a big fan of what if's. What if this happened instead of that? There was a fellow by the name of Porta who is on my "most admired list" for improving steam technology in the face of overwhelming odds and amazingly, in many cases, was successful as well as had employment doing this. I have posted this list of his maxims in my office.


No problem badly defined can have a solution (no ill person can be cured if badly diagnosed.)
The level of any discussion is given by the least informed party or the one whose intelligence has been least trained.
To understand is to become equal.
If I, at this moment, am unable to demonstrate that you are mistaken, that does not mean you are right.
The art of the lawyer is to pass the burden of proof to the other.
No-one realises that they don't know something until they know it. The prehistoric stone-cutter died without knowing that logarithms exist. Cicero didn't know that electricity existed; he was not even able to suspect that it might. This is the fundamental problem with the theory of knowledge (it seems that Ing. Porta has discovered this).
The Office Theory (Brazil): what I don't understand is necessarily wrong.
Whether the scholars and followers of St. Thomas Aquinas like it or not, evidence is not a sufficient criteria for truth. Galileo was condemned because it was evident that the sun circled round the earth, iron ships could not float, etc.
The best level is achieved by the written not the spoken word.
The accuracy of all judgement depends on the accuracy of the information on which it is based.
In all discussion which is always dominated by reasoning that elucidates the truth, there is no deaf person worse than one who does not want to hear.
Only great spirits have broad enough shoulders to bear the brunt of back-tracking on a subject they have defended all their lives.
Each person is a prisoner of his own history. That is why great changes can only be made by the next generation.
When someone writes an article and for some reason wishes to avoid saying something ("hiding the milk") [an Argentine saying that captures both the intention to conceal something quite innocuous and the fact that in time the smell will give disclose what is no longer innocuous!], the subconscious always betrays them and they end up saying more than they meant to. At the fifth reading what was concealed is revealed.
When an article is written containing emphatic assertions (because they are evident), after a few years it becomes clear that they ought not to have been asserted quite so firmly.
It is important to read a lot of old, apparently outdated, things. The information they give is susceptible to reinterpretation thanks to the progress of knowledge. Moreover, they force open new mental processes of a creative nature. This is especially valuable for patents.
Functionaries never let it be known or felt that they represent the community. This is seen, for example, in the discussions that are held between the employment minister and the trades union leaders (it was even worse before!)
There are subtle concepts that are, nevertheless, important.
Oh! the false dilemmas!
No chain is stronger than its weakest link.
A failure does not prove anything, but one single success does prove that something is possible.
One failure might have any explanation; two failures and things become very ugly, but three, and the gods are against you.
Computers are no substitute for talent.
The law cannot go against the nature of things.
Three women cannot be set to produce a baby in three months.
Laws are made for man not man for laws. If something doesn't work the law (norms) must be changed.
There are some norms that are so for historical reasons and others because they are essential affirmations. The former may be violated but the latter no.
Never take anything for granted.
Know that what isn't written down doesn't exist.