Another thing Eisenhower was accused of at the time was allowing the Soviets to create a "missile gap", i.e. build a bunch of nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Kennedy used this alleged missile gap as a "weapon" during the 1960 election. It turned out that there was indeed a missile gap, but that it favored the US: we had more ICBMs than the Soviets. So at least in this case, the accusations that Eisenhower had his eyes closed turned out to be wrong.
"Your numbers are correct and mine were in error." I salute you, sir, for admitting an error, and for not trying to come up with excuses. That's rare in general, and even rarer here on/. If only more of us were willing to admit it when we made an error.
In reciprocating engines (like cars and motorcycles), the engine actually creates a vacuum on the intake stroke, so as long as the gas can drain into the carburetor by gravity, it can get sucked into the engine just fine. In fact one of the standard methods for driving a jeep out of the bush when its fuel pump dies is to position a can of gasoline on top of the engine and siphon it into the carb. Carburetors are seldom used these days, with fuel injectors having taken their place; I'm not sure injectors can work with a low pressure gas input.
Not sure this would work with a jet engine. Possibly if you injected the fuel into the air flow at the intake, instead of where it's normally injected (into the high pressure section, i.e. after the compressor). But I don't know enough about how jet engines work to know whether the fuel pre-mixed with air in the low pressure section could be prevented from igniting too soon.
It certainly would not work with a rocket engine, where the combustion chamber is under high pressure. Indeed, one of the main components of a liquid fuel rocket engine is a turbo pump (actually, a pair of turbo pumps: one for the fuel and one for the oxidizer).
What causes the mass to be expelled, if it isn't this electrostatic mechanism? You have to pump fuel into them, if nothing else; gravity feed doesn't work when the operating principle of the engine is to create pressure in the combustion chamber to push the burned fuel (or some other mass) out the back.
Re medical problems in Antarctica, you might be interested in this: https://www.express.co.uk/trav.... There was also a Russian doctor who did a self-appendectomy while stationed in Antarctica. And the Australians require their doctors (but nobody else) to have had an appendectomy before going to their Antarctic station, so they won't have to do a self-appendectomy. (Sort of like the town where the barber shaves every man who doesn't shave himself.)
There are several Arthur C. Clarke quotes that relate to this, like "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." And "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I believe gtall (the person you are responding to) was being sarcastic, i.e. s/he was implying that the AC he was responding to was wrong. gtall was providing an example showing NOT everything claimed to be impossible will become possible. At least that's my take.
Otoh, there's this quote from Arthur C. Clarke: "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." Of course Clarke's timetable for human travel around the solar system was a bit off...
"the population is getting old. Very old. Globally, the number of people age 60 and over is projected to double to more than 2 billion by 2050 and those 60 and over will outnumber children under the age of 5. In the United States, about 10,000 people turn 65 each day, and one in five Americans will be 65 or older by 2030..." I'd like to know what their definition of "very old" is. I'm 68, do short runs of 5 miles a couple times a week and (usually) a longer run, and I think I'm still cognitively... um, can't remember what I was going to say, but I think it was something good. Anyway, I hope you youngsters keep working to pay for my eventual retirement.
My only wish is that I could find a job I could do from some remote location, where the trails start at my back door. For now, I seem to be tied to a desktop in someone else's office in a somewhat boring state.
"the object entered our solar system with a greater velocity than could be explained by the gravitational pull of our sun" Huh? What does the Sun's gravitational pull have to do with it? The object was not sitting out at some point stationary relative to the Sun, and then started falling. It was already moving when it began to feel the Sun's pull. So *naturally* it's speed was greater than the speed that an object would acquire just by falling towards the Sun.
"the object accelerated on it's way out of our solar system": True, although not by a huge amount; it was consistent with out-gassing that comets undergo, so a tiny amount. Certainly not what one would expect from a space ship.
"two possible jets of material were detected emerging from the object": Everything I've heard is that this was NOT the case. Citation?
"But no one says is the best tool for every job." I wish someone knowledgeable would explain which jobs Jupyter is good for, and which it isn't. I see claims here by one poster, and then a reply below that post saying they're all wrong... Doesn't generate trust, at least not for me.
For the record, I do a lot of Python programming (including object oriented, which one poster said you couldn't do in J, and the very next poster said you could; case in point). Also XML, LaTeX, and finite state transducers, with Literate Programming thrown in (special purpose XML, the Python code is not done in LP). And all under version control. But it's not clear to me what, if anything, I'd be gaining by putting all?/some? of this in Jupyter.
Steam turbines cause vibrations? Strange, I was MPA (Main Propulsion Assistant) on a steam-powered destroyer (USS Goldsborough, DDG-20) for three years. I don't recall *any* vibrations from the turbines. I've even crawled on top of them when we were cruising at 15-20 knots, and I've been in the enginerooms during full power runs (33 knots), and I've never noticed any vibration that I could attribute to the turbines. Also stood next to the SSTGs (Ships Service Turbo Generators, 500KW until we went through overhaul and they were replaced by SSTGs with half again as much power); no vibrations. Now lots of other things vibrate: you could hear the forced draft blowers (feeding air to the boilers) a deck up, and some of the pumps might vibrate, maybe the ones that pumped seawater (fire pumps, cooling water pumps) if they picked up something, and even the fans that kept you from roasting while you were on watch (and which probably contributed to loss of hearing--Eh, what's that you say? ear protection? never heard of it!). And the propeller shafts could vibrate under certain speeds/ loads/ sea conditions.
Now mind you, the parts of these that carry steam--which of course includes the turbines--were covered with thick asbestos lagging (I don't even want to think what that did to my body). And I'm sure that lagging dampened any sounds. But every turbine has a spinning shaft that comes out of it, with no lagging, and if there were a vibration, I would expect it to be transmitted through the shaft.
I don't know what turbine construction was like in the early 1900s, but at least in my experience the turbines in later ships (Goldy was built in 1962) are remarkably quiet, amazingly so considering two of them could push a 4000+ ton ship through the water at 33 knots. That's 70,000 shaft horsepower. How's that compare with your Ford Mustang?
All seriousness aside, I think it ought to be called rocket engineering, not rocket science. That said...I once gave a talk (PowerPoint, I'm afraid) in which we used a diagram of a rocket as an analogy to the software we were building. The three main components of the rocket--fuel, oxidizer, and the rocket engine--corresponded well to the three components of our software, one of which was even called an engine. One of the people listening--bless her!--said, "What they're doing is so complicated, they use rocket science to explain it."
Oh, and btw: I don't believe space is hard, nor even soft; it's a vacuum, more or less...
Slashdot Mirror
Another thing Eisenhower was accused of at the time was allowing the Soviets to create a "missile gap", i.e. build a bunch of nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Kennedy used this alleged missile gap as a "weapon" during the 1960 election. It turned out that there was indeed a missile gap, but that it favored the US: we had more ICBMs than the Soviets. So at least in this case, the accusations that Eisenhower had his eyes closed turned out to be wrong.
"Your numbers are correct and mine were in error." I salute you, sir, for admitting an error, and for not trying to come up with excuses. That's rare in general, and even rarer here on /. If only more of us were willing to admit it when we made an error.
Doggone, I'm not even going to argue with you!
"...the Start menu which gets a touch of Fluent design, making it look *less* attractive."
There, fixed it for you.
In reciprocating engines (like cars and motorcycles), the engine actually creates a vacuum on the intake stroke, so as long as the gas can drain into the carburetor by gravity, it can get sucked into the engine just fine. In fact one of the standard methods for driving a jeep out of the bush when its fuel pump dies is to position a can of gasoline on top of the engine and siphon it into the carb. Carburetors are seldom used these days, with fuel injectors having taken their place; I'm not sure injectors can work with a low pressure gas input.
Not sure this would work with a jet engine. Possibly if you injected the fuel into the air flow at the intake, instead of where it's normally injected (into the high pressure section, i.e. after the compressor). But I don't know enough about how jet engines work to know whether the fuel pre-mixed with air in the low pressure section could be prevented from igniting too soon.
It certainly would not work with a rocket engine, where the combustion chamber is under high pressure. Indeed, one of the main components of a liquid fuel rocket engine is a turbo pump (actually, a pair of turbo pumps: one for the fuel and one for the oxidizer).
What causes the mass to be expelled, if it isn't this electrostatic mechanism? You have to pump fuel into them, if nothing else; gravity feed doesn't work when the operating principle of the engine is to create pressure in the combustion chamber to push the burned fuel (or some other mass) out the back.
Yes, for low power apps; but not to propel an airplane.
"The order is: engage the silent drive." --Captain Marko Ramius
Better known as OVNIs
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/NE...
(and yes, I do know what that stands for... I just used your post as an excuse)
Re medical problems in Antarctica, you might be interested in this: https://www.express.co.uk/trav.... There was also a Russian doctor who did a self-appendectomy while stationed in Antarctica. And the Australians require their doctors (but nobody else) to have had an appendectomy before going to their Antarctic station, so they won't have to do a self-appendectomy. (Sort of like the town where the barber shaves every man who doesn't shave himself.)
There are several Arthur C. Clarke quotes that relate to this, like "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." And "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I believe gtall (the person you are responding to) was being sarcastic, i.e. s/he was implying that the AC he was responding to was wrong. gtall was providing an example showing NOT everything claimed to be impossible will become possible. At least that's my take.
Otoh, there's this quote from Arthur C. Clarke: "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." Of course Clarke's timetable for human travel around the solar system was a bit off...
He's supposed to be getting two of every animal, but I hear the cats don't want to go on board this ark.
"the population is getting old. Very old. Globally, the number of people age 60 and over is projected to double to more than 2 billion by 2050 and those 60 and over will outnumber children under the age of 5. In the United States, about 10,000 people turn 65 each day, and one in five Americans will be 65 or older by 2030..." I'd like to know what their definition of "very old" is. I'm 68, do short runs of 5 miles a couple times a week and (usually) a longer run, and I think I'm still cognitively... um, can't remember what I was going to say, but I think it was something good. Anyway, I hope you youngsters keep working to pay for my eventual retirement.
My only wish is that I could find a job I could do from some remote location, where the trails start at my back door. For now, I seem to be tied to a desktop in someone else's office in a somewhat boring state.
As Khrushchev said
Riiiiiiiiiiight... how's your medication?
"the object entered our solar system with a greater velocity than could be explained by the gravitational pull of our sun" Huh? What does the Sun's gravitational pull have to do with it? The object was not sitting out at some point stationary relative to the Sun, and then started falling. It was already moving when it began to feel the Sun's pull. So *naturally* it's speed was greater than the speed that an object would acquire just by falling towards the Sun.
"the object accelerated on it's way out of our solar system": True, although not by a huge amount; it was consistent with out-gassing that comets undergo, so a tiny amount. Certainly not what one would expect from a space ship.
"two possible jets of material were detected emerging from the object": Everything I've heard is that this was NOT the case. Citation?
"The moon... prevents the Earth's movements from doing anything too radical." Then how do you explain lunacy?
Can you say "Bogus"? I knew you could.
Agreed, why qan't they replase 'c' with 's' or 'q'.
"But no one says is the best tool for every job." I wish someone knowledgeable would explain which jobs Jupyter is good for, and which it isn't. I see claims here by one poster, and then a reply below that post saying they're all wrong... Doesn't generate trust, at least not for me.
For the record, I do a lot of Python programming (including object oriented, which one poster said you couldn't do in J, and the very next poster said you could; case in point). Also XML, LaTeX, and finite state transducers, with Literate Programming thrown in (special purpose XML, the Python code is not done in LP). And all under version control. But it's not clear to me what, if anything, I'd be gaining by putting all?/some? of this in Jupyter.
Didn't we do that back in the 1960s? At least I think so; they say that if you remember the 60s, you weren't there.
Steam turbines cause vibrations? Strange, I was MPA (Main Propulsion Assistant) on a steam-powered destroyer (USS Goldsborough, DDG-20) for three years. I don't recall *any* vibrations from the turbines. I've even crawled on top of them when we were cruising at 15-20 knots, and I've been in the enginerooms during full power runs (33 knots), and I've never noticed any vibration that I could attribute to the turbines. Also stood next to the SSTGs (Ships Service Turbo Generators, 500KW until we went through overhaul and they were replaced by SSTGs with half again as much power); no vibrations. Now lots of other things vibrate: you could hear the forced draft blowers (feeding air to the boilers) a deck up, and some of the pumps might vibrate, maybe the ones that pumped seawater (fire pumps, cooling water pumps) if they picked up something, and even the fans that kept you from roasting while you were on watch (and which probably contributed to loss of hearing--Eh, what's that you say? ear protection? never heard of it!). And the propeller shafts could vibrate under certain speeds/ loads/ sea conditions.
Now mind you, the parts of these that carry steam--which of course includes the turbines--were covered with thick asbestos lagging (I don't even want to think what that did to my body). And I'm sure that lagging dampened any sounds. But every turbine has a spinning shaft that comes out of it, with no lagging, and if there were a vibration, I would expect it to be transmitted through the shaft.
I don't know what turbine construction was like in the early 1900s, but at least in my experience the turbines in later ships (Goldy was built in 1962) are remarkably quiet, amazingly so considering two of them could push a 4000+ ton ship through the water at 33 knots. That's 70,000 shaft horsepower. How's that compare with your Ford Mustang?
You mean it's not like rocket science.
All seriousness aside, I think it ought to be called rocket engineering, not rocket science. That said...I once gave a talk (PowerPoint, I'm afraid) in which we used a diagram of a rocket as an analogy to the software we were building. The three main components of the rocket--fuel, oxidizer, and the rocket engine--corresponded well to the three components of our software, one of which was even called an engine. One of the people listening--bless her!--said, "What they're doing is so complicated, they use rocket science to explain it."
Oh, and btw: I don't believe space is hard, nor even soft; it's a vacuum, more or less...
weld one!