Slashdot Mirror

The internet is the great lost and found!

How to make Starlite
https://www.metabunk.org/how-t...

Sorry modding so have to be anon

Signed
    Anon-Admin

I think that a 737-700 running into a A340 would do more damage than a slightly dented dome.

https://www.metabunk.org/expla...

Actually, it's pretty well identified.

It appears to be LATAM Chile flight LA330.

And they wonder why nobody trusts the news any more after posting ridiculous nonsense like this...

> Is it identified?

Yes. It appears to match LATAM Chile flight LA330, callsign LXP330, which is an Airbus A320-233.

Really? Because there's an airport right there with standard flight route. Feel free to look it up on Planefinder. More info here: https://www.metabunk.org/explanation-for-chilean-navy-ufo-video-aerodynamic-contrail.t8306/

Slashdot, we really need to have an intervention with all this fake news conspiracy crap. I'm only one person, I don't have time to debunk all this nonsense you keep posting. This used to have some vague relation to tech, rather than every random clickbait article you could find in the firehose.

What's the next story going to be? That Russian lizard people hacked the Bilderbergs to steal their chemtrail recipes for the alien galactic overlord, Xenu to use in Darl's $699 Linux auditing sessions?

I will mention some of my other offerings: hyperloop, water seer, and magic beans.

Bingo, and thank you.

And don't forget the latest stupid idea, "spinning solar panels". There's so much wrong with the idea I hardly know where to start.

Yes, why don't they just use a strobe effect, like a flywheel-ganged spinning blade to reduce the heat buildup on a single PV panel? Also would discourage the homeless from trying to crawl inside... : )

OOH and I forgot to mention, that if they cover the spinning strobe blades with solar panels, they will get more joy! Solar joy! And no teepees.

I will mention some of my other offerings: hyperloop, water seer, and magic beans.

Bingo, and thank you.

And don't forget the latest stupid idea, "spinning solar panels". There's so much wrong with the idea I hardly know where to start.

Yes, why don't they just use a strobe effect, like a flywheel-ganged spinning blade to reduce the heat buildup on a single PV panel? Also would discourage the homeless from trying to crawl inside... : )

I will mention some of my other offerings: hyperloop, water seer, and magic beans.

Bingo, and thank you.

And don't forget the latest stupid idea, "spinning solar panels". There's so much wrong with the idea I hardly know where to start.

• The crumple zone doesn't seem to have collapsed. It seems to have sheared off. In a collapsed crumple zone, you expect to see pillars and beams which have accordioned, thus absorbing the maximum amount of energy possible for the weight of the structure. A large chunk of my graduate structural engineering class was calculating these modes of failures for different shapes, so you could design the beam, sheet, whatever to deliberately buckle in this energy-absorbing way. The beams I can make out in the pics are bent and dislocated, suggesting the main impact wasn't head-on. So the crumple zone likely had little to do with their survival (other than it did shatter and fragment like it's designed to - so the vehicle can shed kinetic energy by losing pieces).
• It looks like they crashed into a soft tilled dirt field. Probably the best possible place to crash. The soft material yields, helping to absorb energy. And it conforms to distribute forces over a large contact area, helping to more evenly spread forces over the car's structure. A crash into a concrete barrier is a completely different story. Like how it's difficult to crack an egg in your palm, but really easy with a hard edge.
• There's no mention of the speed. Without knowing the speed, it's really impossible to say how well the car performed.
  • If they were traveling in excess of 150 kph, then this is damned impressive - the passenger compartment is nearly undistorted despite a roll, and it looks like they were able to just open the door to get people out.
  • If they were traveling around 100 kph, then it performed about as expected, especially given the soft dirt field.
  • If they were traveling around 50 kph, then this is terrible. There's no way the front should have suffered that much damage at such a low velocity.

Given that most of the glass is still intact, I'm leaning towards this being either a low velocity impact, or a med/high velocity crash spread over a long distance and time (which also means low impact forces). Which means the fact that the front end shattered like that is really troubling. Perhaps the additional mass of the battery pack (the Tesla weighs as much as an SUV because of the battery pack) contributed to demolishing the front end despite the low impact forces? In an ICE vehicle, the bulk of the mass (engine) is in the front and it absorbs impact forces directly instead of through the structural beams. In a Tesla, the bulk of the mass is in the battery pack underneath the passenger compartment. Since the passenger compartment is designed to remain intact, the kinetic energy of the battery pack has to be fully absorbed by the structural beans in the front or rear.

I would assume Tesla strengthened the beams by a corresponding amount to pass the crash safety tests. But those tests only cover direct front impacts, not a car leaving the ground and impacting the ground at (say) a slight nose-down pitch. The cantilever forces in such an impact due to the additional torque caused by the heavy battery pack behind it could account for the front shattering and shearing off like that.

S[o]me people that believe ... setting off a nuclear weapon would destroy the atmosphere and on and on.

yes, some people like Edward Teller, Oppenheimer and Hans Bethe, hardly unscientific dullards. Then they actually ran the numbers and judged the fear to be unfounded, which you can read about below:

https://www.metabunk.org/debun...

That's called science. I know you don't really understand science or the scientific method, as you don't seem to realize that man made climate change is real. So what can anyone say to you at that point, but that's what happened. Scientists came up with a hypothesis and then tested it to the best of their abilities.

Your Hoover quote was referring to communism, not the Illuminati. How's your spoon holding up?

I came here to say the same - the homepage of GeoResonance is *extremely* light on the technology they use, which mostly sounds like some kind of remote NMR. But how do they excite a signal, and how do they detect it? Also, most of the images they show seems to be super-coarse spatial resolution, useful for finding oil and minerals, but not so much a plane on the oceanfloor.

Finally, even if they had the data, how would they find a tiny signal in their apparently huge dataset which just accidentally happened to cover the area of interest?

I also found this thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threa...

I also think this smells like pseudoscience.

http://metabunk.org/threads/debunked-cnns-fake-news-broadcasts-charles-jaco-and-the-fake-live-gulf-war-reports.1140/

makes u 2 b da foo! foo!