North Carolina (a state in the middle of the US's Atlantic Coast), just passed a law that makes it ILLEGAL from the Department of Justice's crime lab to withhold evidence that would exonerate a suspect. Think about this a second. The government body that is charged with delivering JUSTICE (justice of all things), has to be TOLD, by the legislature, that if they know that a guy DIDN'T commit the crime, they have to tell some damn body! They can't just hide that little piece of information so that they can say they got their man and send some innocent person off to jail for years on end. THEY HAD TO MAKE IT A FELONY, so these supposedly uncorruptable officials would do the right thing. Every damn 10yr old child knows better than this.
You may not believe Tigger's Pet, but I also have enough personal experience with the "justice" system to know that he most likely speaks God's honest truth.
You do know that the American Navy decommissioned its blimp fleet because, (get this).... they were UNSAFE.
No problem in the air, if you carefully avoided anything that resembled a storm. But get anywhere near the ground, like, you know, trying to LAND, and the slightest gust was a nightmare.
1)Plenty of people work around high voltage equipment in wet environments. 2)Strong electric fields don't necessarily mean exposed conductors. 3)A device like this would lead to less of a need to be completely sopping wet.
Fire is a feedback process. A flame heats material till it outgasses. The gasses rise up into heat till they chemically react with the oxygen in the air, an exothermic process that feeds energy back to help outgas and burn more mass from the parent material. If you can interrupt the addition of heat for only a few seconds, you can severely slow the runaway feedback process. A much lower amount of water can then be effective at covering and cooling the parent material to the point that it stops outgassing.
It'd be like drinking and taking sleeping pills for the fire. Say a fireman now carries 30lbs of water in an extinquisher (just made up numbers. Work with me here.) What if 5lbs of batteries and electronics can make that extinquisher as effective as 120lbs (the water doubles the effect of the EM field, which doubles the effect of the water)?
Will it work? The researcher has no way of knowing what he/she is working on will work. That's the difference between research and engineering. But don't paint yourself into a corner but trying to cling to hard to the way things are done now.
Get you a good hot fire going on your grill, and then cover it with the lid for a minute. You will see that it depends on how long you keep the fire down. Pop the lid off as soon as you see the flame go down, and it will flash back up. Hold the lid down for a few more seconds, and you will notice that the flame comes back, but rather slowly. Hold it down a little longer, and you may have to get your lighter out to start it back up.
Fire is a feedback process. A flame heats material till it outgasses. The gasses then heat till they chemically react with the oxygen in the air, an exothermic process that feeds energy back to help outgas more from the parent material. If you can interrupt the addition of heat for only a few seconds, you can severly slow the runaway feedback process.
Try this experiment. Take a can of paint and leave the lid off until it skins over. Now, drill a hole in the skin. Does the liquid paint underneath come spewing out of the hole you just drilled, or does it just sort of sit there?
We're sort of experimenting with small nukes now. Just about every new large warship has one. They are designed to be used in a friggin' WARZONE. How does a ship getting hit by an enemy cruise missile compare to and earthquake and tsunami?
The anti-nuke people get just about zero input into what the military chooses to do.
The PV cells will block a significant portion of sunlight, helping to cool the building during the summer.
The wind turbine would create an incredible lateral force, in addition to the lateral force the building is already absorbing from the wind. Worse still, this force would be located where it would create the most torque on the building foundations. Generating 2MW from a windmill at the top of the tower could very well bring the whole building down.
Then you have the issue of windmills slinging ice in a highly populated area. I could see some locals getting somewhat irate at the thought of that.
The next question: Why does it have to be an either/or proposition?
Heck I looked into solar hot water but because of the hard freeze you either need a drainback system or a triple heat exchange system and both have costs greater than their expected lifetime payoff.
I'm waiting for someone to commercialize a heat-pipe design. Some permanently sealed copper tubes, 1/8th full of freon, terminate in a heavily insulated tank in the apex of your roof. When the sun is out, freon boils and rises to cool inside the tank. When the hard freeze is on, the freon sits in the bottom of the tube, drastically reducing the heat transfer. No moving parts, but the roof structure would have to be beefed up to support the tank.
No there are several other choices. For instance, your backyard will be getting a windmill. That will give a nice short distance to power your electric vehicle. Your noise reducing earmuffs should be arriving by UPS, and do please do try to avoid the flying ice in winter.
Contrary to your unsubstantiated claim, sitting in a courtroom has convinced me that you are absolutely WRONG!!
It is an amazing thing to watch our so-called justice system at work. If you have a big bank account, you will find a loophole to that frees you from responsibility. If you are middle-class, you can pay for a lawyer that will give you lip service, or you can show up 10 minutes before the trial so that the public 'defender' and instruct you on the best way to plead guilty.
Great, I get in my car to go to work, and the power company just had to take a generator offline and hour before. I find the battery half depleted. Not enough to get to work.
It would be plenty enough if they would change the train system to make it easy to load/unload electric cars. Load the cars sideways and in parallel, possibly even in a double-decker fashion. Then I could drive a few miles to a special train loading station. Drive up onto it like I'm climbing onto a roller coaster. Let the train pull me to the vicinity of my destination, where I drive off and onto regular roads for the last of my trip.
The problem with trains is the last mile issue. The problem with electrics is the middle "multiple-miles" issue. The two fit together like peanut-butter and chocolate.
Is it possible that an active magnetic envelope could be devised that would capture radiation and particles at the front of the craft and accelerate it to the rear. There is not a lot of interplanetary debris, but what is there would be devastating as the craft approaches a significant fraction of c. Shielding would be necessary for both radiation and particulate matter. If the particles and ionized radiation could be harnessed, the craft could move through space much like a jelly fish.
Everything controls everything. In a light plane, adding power changes your AoA (increase propwash). Modifying pitch changes the load on the engine, changing power. An airplane is a concert of parts flying in tight formation, with constant battles as the various parts jockey for position. The successful pilot is a conductor that manages to get the parts to play in harmony.
Have you never ridden in an airliner? Can you not detect the difference in sound when the plane speeds up/slows down?
The pilot should know his machine without any instruments, whether it is a 35 Vso Piper Cub or a 120 Vso Boeing 747. If the instruments tell you that your are near or below stall speed, but you hear the wind speed, hear the engine whining normally and don't feel a stall buffet, you cover the airspeed indicator. It is lying to you.
One of the perils of technology is over reliance to the exclusion of low technology indicators, which are often more reliable "in aggregate".
Turn in your pilot certificate or look around at a few more planes.
One of my attitude indicators is run off electrons. My T&B is run off vacuum. The other is run off external lights (look out the damn big window in front of you).
The only think I would add to what you said is that they would need some sort of turn and bank indicator. The EFIS would probably supply this, or they could pick it up from the magnetic compass. You didn't say it wasn't needed, but it wasn't clear from your post that it was.
Hold the nose of the plane to a particular heading...any heading...then put the controls into a shallow climb configuration...you will eventually climb above the clouds or run out of fuel. Hopefully, the pilots would have enough sense to choose a heading that gave them some nice landing options.
A case that might make Sky Cry's argument a little clearer.
Most of the light planes carry their fuel in the wings. It is easy to make a big tank there, and they are close to the center of lift, so that as the fuel is used up it doesn't move the aircraft's center of gravity in relation to the center of lift by much. The problem is that there are two wings. Experimenter builders continuously run up against how to design for fuel management. The "certified" way, used in nearly every production aircraft, is to have a valve that selects between one tank or the other. Forget to periodically switch tanks, and the plane starts wanting to fly sideways (I accidentally did this one during training.) Sure, it is only one more thing to do...but IT IS ONE MORE THING TO DO. Pilots have landed and even crashed with quiet engines, because they forgot to switch tanks. You can call it pilot error, but I would prefer to call it design deficiency. Creating a poor interface, and then blaming it on the user is disingenous.
I chose to build a design that only has one tank. I'll never forget to switch tanks in that airplane.
Slashdot Mirror
to a guy with no history or experience or knowledge in anything becoming the country's "CTO" to . . . this.
Well, if the American people can appoint a man with those qualifications to becoming the country's "CEO", why shouldn't Obama do the same.
based on secret information their attorneys didn't even know about
You mean, like the information I have in my head when I walk into the jury box? Since when did more information ever become a bad thing?
Dude!? Really?
North Carolina (a state in the middle of the US's Atlantic Coast), just passed a law that makes it ILLEGAL from the Department of Justice's crime lab to withhold evidence that would exonerate a suspect. Think about this a second. The government body that is charged with delivering JUSTICE (justice of all things), has to be TOLD, by the legislature, that if they know that a guy DIDN'T commit the crime, they have to tell some damn body! They can't just hide that little piece of information so that they can say they got their man and send some innocent person off to jail for years on end. THEY HAD TO MAKE IT A FELONY, so these supposedly uncorruptable officials would do the right thing. Every damn 10yr old child knows better than this.
You may not believe Tigger's Pet, but I also have enough personal experience with the "justice" system to know that he most likely speaks God's honest truth.
You do know that the American Navy decommissioned its blimp fleet because, (get this).... they were UNSAFE.
No problem in the air, if you carefully avoided anything that resembled a storm. But get anywhere near the ground, like, you know, trying to LAND, and the slightest gust was a nightmare.
1)Plenty of people work around high voltage equipment in wet environments.
2)Strong electric fields don't necessarily mean exposed conductors.
3)A device like this would lead to less of a need to be completely sopping wet.
Fire is a feedback process. A flame heats material till it outgasses. The gasses rise up into heat till they chemically react with the oxygen in the air, an exothermic process that feeds energy back to help outgas and burn more mass from the parent material. If you can interrupt the addition of heat for only a few seconds, you can severely slow the runaway feedback process. A much lower amount of water can then be effective at covering and cooling the parent material to the point that it stops outgassing.
It'd be like drinking and taking sleeping pills for the fire. Say a fireman now carries 30lbs of water in an extinquisher (just made up numbers. Work with me here.) What if 5lbs of batteries and electronics can make that extinquisher as effective as 120lbs (the water doubles the effect of the EM field, which doubles the effect of the water)?
Will it work? The researcher has no way of knowing what he/she is working on will work. That's the difference between research and engineering. But don't paint yourself into a corner but trying to cling to hard to the way things are done now.
Get you a good hot fire going on your grill, and then cover it with the lid for a minute. You will see that it depends on how long you keep the fire down. Pop the lid off as soon as you see the flame go down, and it will flash back up. Hold the lid down for a few more seconds, and you will notice that the flame comes back, but rather slowly. Hold it down a little longer, and you may have to get your lighter out to start it back up.
Fire is a feedback process. A flame heats material till it outgasses. The gasses then heat till they chemically react with the oxygen in the air, an exothermic process that feeds energy back to help outgas more from the parent material. If you can interrupt the addition of heat for only a few seconds, you can severly slow the runaway feedback process.
Magma is liquid rock. Right?
Try this experiment. Take a can of paint and leave the lid off until it skins over.
Now, drill a hole in the skin.
Does the liquid paint underneath come spewing out of the hole you just drilled, or does it just sort of sit there?
And yet there are still commercials for wristbands with magnets in them to cure arthritis...doesn't have to work to be marketed....I'm just sayin'.
We're sort of experimenting with small nukes now. Just about every new large warship has one. They are designed to be used in a friggin' WARZONE. How does a ship getting hit by an enemy cruise missile compare to and earthquake and tsunami?
The anti-nuke people get just about zero input into what the military chooses to do.
It doesn't compare well at all.
The PV cells will block a significant portion of sunlight, helping to cool the building during the summer.
The wind turbine would create an incredible lateral force, in addition to the lateral force the building is already absorbing from the wind. Worse still, this force would be located where it would create the most torque on the building foundations. Generating 2MW from a windmill at the top of the tower could very well bring the whole building down.
Then you have the issue of windmills slinging ice in a highly populated area. I could see some locals getting somewhat irate at the thought of that.
The next question: Why does it have to be an either/or proposition?
Heck I looked into solar hot water but because of the hard freeze you either need a drainback system or a triple heat exchange system and both have costs greater than their expected lifetime payoff.
I'm waiting for someone to commercialize a heat-pipe design. Some permanently sealed copper tubes, 1/8th full of freon, terminate in a heavily insulated tank in the apex of your roof. When the sun is out, freon boils and rises to cool inside the tank. When the hard freeze is on, the freon sits in the bottom of the tube, drastically reducing the heat transfer. No moving parts, but the roof structure would have to be beefed up to support the tank.
No there are several other choices. For instance, your backyard will be getting a windmill. That will give a nice short distance to power your electric vehicle. Your noise reducing earmuffs should be arriving by UPS, and do please do try to avoid the flying ice in winter.
"Government is smarter than the people."
Sounds like the typical progressive to me.
Contrary to your unsubstantiated claim, sitting in a courtroom has convinced me that you are absolutely WRONG!!
It is an amazing thing to watch our so-called justice system at work. If you have a big bank account, you will find a loophole to that frees you from responsibility. If you are middle-class, you can pay for a lawyer that will give you lip service, or you can show up 10 minutes before the trial so that the public 'defender' and instruct you on the best way to plead guilty.
Make a hybrid that runs on NG, and you have the best of both worlds.
Great, I get in my car to go to work, and the power company just had to take a generator offline and hour before. I find the battery half depleted. Not enough to get to work.
Thanks, but I'll pass this time.
It would be plenty enough if they would change the train system to make it easy to load/unload electric cars. Load the cars sideways and in parallel, possibly even in a double-decker fashion. Then I could drive a few miles to a special train loading station. Drive up onto it like I'm climbing onto a roller coaster. Let the train pull me to the vicinity of my destination, where I drive off and onto regular roads for the last of my trip.
The problem with trains is the last mile issue. The problem with electrics is the middle "multiple-miles" issue. The two fit together like peanut-butter and chocolate.
When corporations started demanding a degree to their specifications before they would let you work at their job.
If you think the average prole is going to get a decent job without a BS, then YOU are part of the problem.
Is it possible that an active magnetic envelope could be devised that would capture radiation and particles at the front of the craft and accelerate it to the rear. There is not a lot of interplanetary debris, but what is there would be devastating as the craft approaches a significant fraction of c. Shielding would be necessary for both radiation and particulate matter. If the particles and ionized radiation could be harnessed, the craft could move through space much like a jelly fish.
Fast forward to the first season of Voyager (using a tachyon pulse, of course), and it would be useful in ALL situations.
8*)
Actually, I am a pilot.
Everything controls everything. In a light plane, adding power changes your AoA (increase propwash). Modifying pitch changes the load on the engine, changing power. An airplane is a concert of parts flying in tight formation, with constant battles as the various parts jockey for position. The successful pilot is a conductor that manages to get the parts to play in harmony.
Have you never ridden in an airliner? Can you not detect the difference in sound when the plane speeds up/slows down?
The pilot should know his machine without any instruments, whether it is a 35 Vso Piper Cub or a 120 Vso Boeing 747. If the instruments tell you that your are near or below stall speed, but you hear the wind speed, hear the engine whining normally and don't feel a stall buffet, you cover the airspeed indicator. It is lying to you.
One of the perils of technology is over reliance to the exclusion of low technology indicators, which are often more reliable "in aggregate".
Turn in your pilot certificate or look around at a few more planes.
One of my attitude indicators is run off electrons.
My T&B is run off vacuum.
The other is run off external lights (look out the damn big window in front of you).
I've flow planes that only has the last option.
The only think I would add to what you said is that they would need some sort of turn and bank indicator. The EFIS would probably supply this, or they could pick it up from the magnetic compass. You didn't say it wasn't needed, but it wasn't clear from your post that it was.
Hold the nose of the plane to a particular heading...any heading...then put the controls into a shallow climb configuration...you will eventually climb above the clouds or run out of fuel. Hopefully, the pilots would have enough sense to choose a heading that gave them some nice landing options.
A case that might make Sky Cry's argument a little clearer.
Most of the light planes carry their fuel in the wings. It is easy to make a big tank there, and they are close to the center of lift, so that as the fuel is used up it doesn't move the aircraft's center of gravity in relation to the center of lift by much. The problem is that there are two wings. Experimenter builders continuously run up against how to design for fuel management. The "certified" way, used in nearly every production aircraft, is to have a valve that selects between one tank or the other. Forget to periodically switch tanks, and the plane starts wanting to fly sideways (I accidentally did this one during training.) Sure, it is only one more thing to do...but IT IS ONE MORE THING TO DO. Pilots have landed and even crashed with quiet engines, because they forgot to switch tanks. You can call it pilot error, but I would prefer to call it design deficiency. Creating a poor interface, and then blaming it on the user is disingenous.
I chose to build a design that only has one tank. I'll never forget to switch tanks in that airplane.