It's bad enough flying fixed-wing aircraft -- which, by the way, if they aren't jets, have fantastic glide ratios typically, and can land in cornfields, on highways, or anyplace else there's level ground
Not really - most aircraft designed for powered flight expect to have power. Take away the power and you have a low efficiency glider with a big useless weight hanging up front. Their glide ratios are really quite poor. So you need a lot of altitude to travel any appreciable distance. Usually the best you can hope for is to be able to pick your place to crash. In addition, most powered aircraft wings stall at relatively high speeds, and you have to trade altitude for airspeed. Too many times the pilot tries to hold it up with the stick or yoke (or make a turn), stalls, rolls over and does the infamous "lawn dart" maneuver. Helicopters can autorotate (if they are high enough and if the rotors are attached and can turn), so you have a decent chance if terrain is favorable (lose your engine over a metropolitan area or heavy forests or mountains in either a chopper or a fixed wing and it's gonna be ugly). A fixed wing needs a reasonable approximation of a runway (it's surprising how long it needs to be, even gear-up). One 12" [30 cm] deep gully going across a field is invisible from the air but can easily cause the other infamous forced landing maneuver - "rolling it into a ball". Most roads are too narrow, and have those pesky power lines! And there are cars on them - hit one of them at 60 mph (somewhere around stall speed for average light civilian aircraft) and it will ruin your day! An auto-rotating chopper can come down safely in a parking lot, playground, large backyard, etc. Water favors the helicopter - ditching a fixed wing aircraft is really tricky.
Of course, if the helicopter's transmission fails, there's a chance that the rotor won't be able to turn, and so no autorotation. Ouch.
Re:Of course not out, just expensive.
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
Caveat - see name above for clue as to where interests/subconscious sympathies lie.
We (we=humans on third rock from sun) have plenty of fossil fuels for a few more generations. But it will not be cheap. Major oilfields in the "western" world are in tertiary recovery; many of the "third world" fields are entering secondary recovery (primary=poke a hole in the ground; secondary = pump it out; tertiary = push it out). But it is just a matter of money to recover "previously uneconomical" reserves. And as recovery cost increase, other alternatives (oil shales, coal-to-gas conversions) which were "previously uneconomical" will magically become "the next big thing".
$2/gal in the US is not the end of the world. Note that I work in the oilfield service sector, but not with an oil company per se, and I so see no direct benefit from retail (if they don't drill, I starve). As prices rise, we will see an evolutionary cultural shift. We are already seeing the start of it - hybrids (fully electric vehicles are ahead of their time, and solar is way out there). The real problem (US centric opinion follows) is instability - a significant sudden increase in fuel costs. Like it or not, the US is geographically a big country, and as of today we rely on fossil fuels to move stuff from A to B. If diesel prices go to $5/gal - ouch. The price that Winston and Muffin pay for premium unleaded for their Hummer H2 does not concern me in the least (n.b. I own a 1998 Saturn, a 1995 Dodge Ram pickup and a 1983 Mazda RX-7, all of which are perfectly happy on regular unleaded...).
Bottom line - "depletion" of oil & gas reserves is primarily an economic situation, at least as far as we, our childen and grandchildren are concerned. Adapt or die.
The good news - oil companies (the big evil as they are generally regarded) are not stupid. They are pushing us in the service sector for technology to more reliably identify candidates for tertiary recovery, and are continuously improving their recovery efficiency.
Bottom line #2 - everyone reading this will probably be carried to their grave in a vehicle powered, directly or indirectly, by fossil fuels.
Agreed. The only way that this would approach a state where the terrorist cannot bypass it would be to make the airplane ONLY flyable via electronic input - no backup hydraulic or mechanical control system at all. You say "go left", computer says "OK" and moves the control surfaces appropriately. Or you say "go left", computer says "not allowed", and you continue straight and level flight. But what if you say "go left", computer says "Fatal exception error 0x0FDE00"?
It lends a whole new perspective to the term "system crash".
Re: criminal moron... bypass your trash Agree 101%. As the cliche goes, locks only stop honest people. If someone really wants to get your (credit card number, medical condition, stereo, whatever) and is willing to devote unlimited time to the task, no reasonable action on your part can stop them.
Cingular (and my 3-year-old NEC phone) have never failed me in Houston/Austin/I-10 going East to Florida. The only place I couldn't catch a signal when I wanted one was in the God-forsaken west Texas scrubland south of Midland.
Most of his essay collections are in fact physics or chemistry lectures cloaked in anecdotes. Enjoyable to read, the depth of the material is certainly not at the grad student level, but as Bill Cosby used to say "if you're not careful you might learn something".
My computer chair for the past (nine, ten, ??) years has been the driver's seat from a 1984 Mazda RX-7, mounted on the base from an old office chair. It's a bit high, but putting the desk on a couple of 2x4's and finding a suitable footrest solved that problem. No power gizmos, but it's the most comfortable seat in the house. I could sleep in it (and back when I used a dialup connection I often did...)
I'm with a company that has used TQM and is currently wholly immersed in ISO9000/9001. Each has useful aspects. TQM was more propaganda than substance, but had some value. ISO certification required a LOT more work, but had a better payoff. The advantage is that it forces documentation of processes - people have to sit down and document HOW they do their jobs. It makes you think about what actually has to be done to get product from point A to point Z, and often you see inefficiencies and potential holes when you take an objective look at a process.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really - most aircraft designed for powered flight expect to have power. Take away the power and you have a low efficiency glider with a big useless weight hanging up front. Their glide ratios are really quite poor. So you need a lot of altitude to travel any appreciable distance. Usually the best you can hope for is to be able to pick your place to crash. In addition, most powered aircraft wings stall at relatively high speeds, and you have to trade altitude for airspeed. Too many times the pilot tries to hold it up with the stick or yoke (or make a turn), stalls, rolls over and does the infamous "lawn dart" maneuver. Helicopters can autorotate (if they are high enough and if the rotors are attached and can turn), so you have a decent chance if terrain is favorable (lose your engine over a metropolitan area or heavy forests or mountains in either a chopper or a fixed wing and it's gonna be ugly). A fixed wing needs a reasonable approximation of a runway (it's surprising how long it needs to be, even gear-up). One 12" [30 cm] deep gully going across a field is invisible from the air but can easily cause the other infamous forced landing maneuver - "rolling it into a ball". Most roads are too narrow, and have those pesky power lines! And there are cars on them - hit one of them at 60 mph (somewhere around stall speed for average light civilian aircraft) and it will ruin your day! An auto-rotating chopper can come down safely in a parking lot, playground, large backyard, etc. Water favors the helicopter - ditching a fixed wing aircraft is really tricky.
Of course, if the helicopter's transmission fails, there's a chance that the rotor won't be able to turn, and so no autorotation. Ouch.
Caveat - see name above for clue as to where interests/subconscious sympathies lie.
We (we=humans on third rock from sun) have plenty of fossil fuels for a few more generations. But it will not be cheap. Major oilfields in the "western" world are in tertiary recovery; many of the "third world" fields are entering secondary recovery (primary=poke a hole in the ground; secondary = pump it out; tertiary = push it out). But it is just a matter of money to recover "previously uneconomical" reserves. And as recovery cost increase, other alternatives (oil shales, coal-to-gas conversions) which were "previously uneconomical" will magically become "the next big thing".
$2/gal in the US is not the end of the world. Note that I work in the oilfield service sector, but not with an oil company per se, and I so see no direct benefit from retail (if they don't drill, I starve). As prices rise, we will see an evolutionary cultural shift. We are already seeing the start of it - hybrids (fully electric vehicles are ahead of their time, and solar is way out there). The real problem (US centric opinion follows) is instability - a significant sudden increase in fuel costs. Like it or not, the US is geographically a big country, and as of today we rely on fossil fuels to move stuff from A to B. If diesel prices go to $5/gal - ouch. The price that Winston and Muffin pay for premium unleaded for their Hummer H2 does not concern me in the least (n.b. I own a 1998 Saturn, a 1995 Dodge Ram pickup and a 1983 Mazda RX-7, all of which are perfectly happy on regular unleaded...).
Bottom line - "depletion" of oil & gas reserves is primarily an economic situation, at least as far as we, our childen and grandchildren are concerned. Adapt or die.
The good news - oil companies (the big evil as they are generally regarded) are not stupid. They are pushing us in the service sector for technology to more reliably identify candidates for tertiary recovery, and are continuously improving their recovery efficiency.
Bottom line #2 - everyone reading this will probably be carried to their grave in a vehicle powered, directly or indirectly, by fossil fuels.
My handheld aviation transceiver picks up quite a bit of noise around most (metal box) computers. I have to turn the squelch up a couple of notches.
So apparently some energy in the 118.000 - 136.975 MHz band is emitted from cases which comply with Part 15.
I'll have to pull off a side panel sometime and see how much worse it gets.
Agreed. The only way that this would approach a state where the terrorist cannot bypass it would be to make the airplane ONLY flyable via electronic input - no backup hydraulic or mechanical control system at all. You say "go left", computer says "OK" and moves the control surfaces appropriately. Or you say "go left", computer says "not allowed", and you continue straight and level flight. But what if you say "go left", computer says "Fatal exception error 0x0FDE00"?
It lends a whole new perspective to the term "system crash".
Re: criminal moron ... bypass your trash
Agree 101%. As the cliche goes, locks only stop honest people. If someone really wants to get your (credit card number, medical condition, stereo, whatever) and is willing to devote unlimited time to the task, no reasonable action on your part can stop them.
Cingular (and my 3-year-old NEC phone) have never failed me in Houston/Austin/I-10 going East to Florida. The only place I couldn't catch a signal when I wanted one was in the God-forsaken west Texas scrubland south of Midland.
Perhaps due to the fact that you are inside a big aluminum cylinder?
Most of his essay collections are in fact physics or chemistry lectures cloaked in anecdotes. Enjoyable to read, the depth of the material is certainly not at the grad student level, but as Bill Cosby used to say "if you're not careful you might learn something".
My computer chair for the past (nine, ten, ??) years has been the driver's seat from a 1984 Mazda RX-7, mounted on the base from an old office chair. It's a bit high, but putting the desk on a couple of 2x4's and finding a suitable footrest solved that problem. No power gizmos, but it's the most comfortable seat in the house. I could sleep in it (and back when I used a dialup connection I often did ...)
I'm with a company that has used TQM and is currently wholly immersed in ISO9000/9001. Each has useful aspects. TQM was more propaganda than substance, but had some value. ISO certification required a LOT more work, but had a better payoff. The advantage is that it forces documentation of processes - people have to sit down and document HOW they do their jobs. It makes you think about what actually has to be done to get product from point A to point Z, and often you see inefficiencies and potential holes when you take an objective look at a process.