Remember the Klein-Fogleman!
on
Fanwing Planes?
·
· Score: 1
After trying to find Klein-Fogleman wing references in Google, I realize that you will need an alternate reference if you can't remember. So look it up or cast your mind back to 1975 or so and see what you find on the K-F hype experience. K-F, Fanwing, psychedelic drugs, cold fusion, stupid patents. Is there a connection? What is that farmer growing? Is mad cow disease a conspiracy? Why are we talking about this, anyway? Mooooo
When a report is as complete and direct as this benchmark, it is interesting to see what the jackals go after. What body parts are worth flaming/roasting? In this case, ya'll missed two notable points:
1. Two J2EE platforms by major vendors were tested. One really sucked for air (yeah, tell me performance doesn't matter!). Who were the vendors, all you Java experts reading between the lines? Would you buy that system?
2. I understand that the.NET versions did not leverage stored procedures on purpose (apparently the first round of benchmarks got criticized for "non-portable" use of the DB!). I'd like to see that performance, because we are talking performance and not portability.
OK folks, how about object-oriented NASTRAN? Anybody out there agreeing yet? This is hardcore structural analysis, and a major pain for years because of its initial programming architecture.
Lockheed-Martin is using a generalized data handling/simulation library called GEMD. It's object-oriented data complemented by an object-oriented, high performance C library. It's powerful enough for F-16 or F-22 simulation, and conveniant for simple one-hour problems. It is a standard for much of the engineering staff.
Are spreadsheets great engineering tools or what? I've done propeller design with a spreadsheet. At the interface, there are lots of objects. I'm sure spreadsheets are best programmed with object principles in mind.
Engineering is a very real-world endeveor. You can argue that engineers use mathematical abstractions in their work, and I would argue that even mathematical abstractions can be regarded as objects in a programming implementation. And I would also argue that most engineers are held to much higher standards of accountability if their software fails. And that goes for accident and incident analysis, too.
Anything that improves production, use, testability, maintenance of software in engineering is well worth learning and using well.
You know, don't you, that the aircraft industry invented vaporware first? The EVWorld article contains plenty of information to reveal that fact. I am still looking for a 180 HP electric motor that doesn't require a crane to pick up.
On the other hand, I've held a compressed-air motor in one hand that produced 200 HP. I wonder why nobody is looking into compressed-air power?
Could it be that you have to lift the whole system in your airplane?
I'm sorry, this answer is nonsense. So is the original article, which is really terrible. Thirty minutes to go halfway around the world? There's all the clue you need that the author is clueless.
I worked on the Gulfstream V design, and yes Gulfstream had a supersonic bizjet on paper. There is no way to do the things in the article. If you are going to dream big dreams, stick to something practical and achievable, like teleportation.
Note: Don't try to convert Mach number directly to speed unless you know the atmospheric conditions in the test cell. They might not have been using air, and Mach also depends on temperature (remember, it is the ratio to the speed of sound in the conditions you are at).
The orbital use of scramjets was very attractive in the 70s and 80s (remember the National Aerospace Plane, NASP?). Now the aero engineers know better. Of course, that news doesn't make Popular Science.
Executive Summary
The usability study is unusable by a non-Gnome developer. There is some question whether it will make an impression on a Gnome developer. The authors are searching for a Gnome developer that can communicate with regular humans or usability testers in order to test this hypothesis.
The Army has flown big lasers on a 767 since the 80s. The 747 is just a larger platform with more capacity. I haven't read the article yet, but some posts about 1 or 5 megawatt lasers were just laughable. We used to blast paint off plywood at close range to test a 1 megawatt lab laser. Not very dangerous!
If you find some material on estimated output of modern lasers in the 10,000 pound class, I think you will find much higher numbers.
As for confusion between civilian/military aircraft, airframes have been shared since the 1920s, no big deal. Some people still think the 707 was developed and financed by the military (the KC-135 is very similar).
Given this oh-so scary news story, I think we will soon see the movie Air Force One II with Harrison Ford swooping in low over Iraq to blast that bad boy off the face of the planet for good, using his trusty 747 laser gun. The article probably came from Hollywood just to promo this pic!
Take the case of "The Truth Machine", which was initially published for free on the Web from galley proofs. The author collected edits and suggestions from the site, friends, and well-known authors. Many revisions and months of work by a publicist led to a book deal with a large publisher and some time on the best-seller list. I understand the movie will be out soon. Bottom line, the Web is a great marketing tool and writing/publishing books is a punishing business. Unknown authors can use hard work and the Web to help break through.
Slashdot Mirror
After trying to find Klein-Fogleman wing references in Google, I realize that you will need an alternate reference if you can't remember. So look it up or cast your mind back to 1975 or so and see what you find on the K-F hype experience. K-F, Fanwing, psychedelic drugs, cold fusion, stupid patents. Is there a connection? What is that farmer growing? Is mad cow disease a conspiracy? Why are we talking about this, anyway? Mooooo
When a report is as complete and direct as this benchmark, it is interesting to see what the jackals go after. What body parts are worth flaming/roasting? In this case, ya'll missed two notable points:
.NET versions did not leverage stored procedures on purpose (apparently the first round of benchmarks got criticized for "non-portable" use of the DB!). I'd like to see that performance, because we are talking performance and not portability.
1. Two J2EE platforms by major vendors were tested. One really sucked for air (yeah, tell me performance doesn't matter!). Who were the vendors, all you Java experts reading between the lines? Would you buy that system?
2. I understand that the
Chew on this for awhile...
OK folks, how about object-oriented NASTRAN? Anybody out there agreeing yet? This is hardcore structural analysis, and a major pain for years because of its initial programming architecture.
Lockheed-Martin is using a generalized data handling/simulation library called GEMD. It's object-oriented data complemented by an object-oriented, high performance C library. It's powerful enough for F-16 or F-22 simulation, and conveniant for simple one-hour problems. It is a standard for much of the engineering staff.
Are spreadsheets great engineering tools or what? I've done propeller design with a spreadsheet. At the interface, there are lots of objects. I'm sure spreadsheets are best programmed with object principles in mind.
Engineering is a very real-world endeveor. You can argue that engineers use mathematical abstractions in their work, and I would argue that even mathematical abstractions can be regarded as objects in a programming implementation. And I would also argue that most engineers are held to much higher standards of accountability if their software fails. And that goes for accident and incident analysis, too.
Anything that improves production, use, testability, maintenance of software in engineering is well worth learning and using well.
You know, don't you, that the aircraft industry invented vaporware first? The EVWorld article contains plenty of information to reveal that fact. I am still looking for a 180 HP electric motor that doesn't require a crane to pick up.
On the other hand, I've held a compressed-air motor in one hand that produced 200 HP. I wonder why nobody is looking into compressed-air power?
Could it be that you have to lift the whole system in your airplane?
I'm sorry, this answer is nonsense. So is the original article, which is really terrible. Thirty minutes to go halfway around the world? There's all the clue you need that the author is clueless.
I worked on the Gulfstream V design, and yes Gulfstream had a supersonic bizjet on paper. There is no way to do the things in the article. If you are going to dream big dreams, stick to something practical and achievable, like teleportation.
Note: Don't try to convert Mach number directly to speed unless you know the atmospheric conditions in the test cell. They might not have been using air, and Mach also depends on temperature (remember, it is the ratio to the speed of sound in the conditions you are at).
The orbital use of scramjets was very attractive in the 70s and 80s (remember the National Aerospace Plane, NASP?). Now the aero engineers know better. Of course, that news doesn't make Popular Science.
Executive Summary The usability study is unusable by a non-Gnome developer. There is some question whether it will make an impression on a Gnome developer. The authors are searching for a Gnome developer that can communicate with regular humans or usability testers in order to test this hypothesis.
The Army has flown big lasers on a 767 since the 80s. The 747 is just a larger platform with more capacity. I haven't read the article yet, but some posts about 1 or 5 megawatt lasers were just laughable. We used to blast paint off plywood at close range to test a 1 megawatt lab laser. Not very dangerous! If you find some material on estimated output of modern lasers in the 10,000 pound class, I think you will find much higher numbers. As for confusion between civilian/military aircraft, airframes have been shared since the 1920s, no big deal. Some people still think the 707 was developed and financed by the military (the KC-135 is very similar). Given this oh-so scary news story, I think we will soon see the movie Air Force One II with Harrison Ford swooping in low over Iraq to blast that bad boy off the face of the planet for good, using his trusty 747 laser gun. The article probably came from Hollywood just to promo this pic!
Take the case of "The Truth Machine", which was initially published for free on the Web from galley proofs. The author collected edits and suggestions from the site, friends, and well-known authors. Many revisions and months of work by a publicist led to a book deal with a large publisher and some time on the best-seller list. I understand the movie will be out soon. Bottom line, the Web is a great marketing tool and writing/publishing books is a punishing business. Unknown authors can use hard work and the Web to help break through.