If the prop actually does break and hits the fabric of the wing it will probably punch a hole. The sailcloth is pretty tough and doesn't rip that easily. I would expect degraded flight but not plummeting out of the sky.
If wing damage did occur you would probably end up with an asymmetrical wing and worst case end up with an uncontrollable turn. That's the time to throw the chute which has a pivot joint exactly for that reason.
The models that do energy recovery have an option to fold the prop or not.
And yes most hang gliders don't really need more drag. Most pilots would rather fly longer and just recharge the battery on the ground. It isn't like it is very expensive.
There are conditions where you can get really high and you're tired and just want to get down. A speed brake would be useful then.
Some ultralights and electric hang gliders can recover energy on descent. For example the Icaro is similar to designs that do this. (I haven't flown one myself.)
Theoretically you can take off on a full charge to climb into soaring conditions, turn off the motor, windmill the prop, and recharge by basically capturing the energy gained in the lift of thermals. (i.e. solar energy). Then glide to the LZ and end up with a full charge.
I suppose you might be referring to the SureFly, which is a hybrid. This looks fairly promising at the spec level given that it does not seem to rely an a new generation of battery technology.
Actually I think its biggest problem will be cabin noise. So many of these concepts never get off the ground for seemingly trivial reasons, so to speak.
Did I read it correctly that 3 solar masses were converted to energy? Over what period of time I wonder. Our own sun's total output would not consume all its mass over billions of years.
How big a blast zone did that leave? I can imagine star systems for light years around could have been burnt, destroying civilizations. Has anyone done the numbers?
Don't view the Sun as a beam simply transmitting gravity to Earth. Gravity waves are radiating outwards in 3D space in all directions at all times.
Well said. I would just add something someone told me once when I was pondering the same question. If the sun instantly disappeared, the Earth would continue in its orbit undisturbed for roughly eight minutes. And, of course, it would continue to be heated and lit for the same time.
How do you know that? Where is the real document that proved that?
If you are really interested in the subject you could start with the Wikipedia article. I notice that many of its citation links are broken (a constant problem there) but you can find references to many "documents" indicating that GWB basically stopped flying for the TNG before his obligation to do so was up.
However most people are more interested in defending their predetermined political position rather than looking at evidence so I have no real hope of anyone here paying attention.
If you take the fake memo out of the story you still end up with the fact that GWB skipped out on his service obligations. That has been well established and corroborated by many witnesses. However the right-wing noise machine was able to drown out all facts related to the case other than the memo's origin and I see that it is still working quite well here.
The question of "why this or that language" comes up often and my stock answer is as follows:
To me the specific language is irrelevant. The reason you use a given language is because a given framework, class library, or function library is written in it and that body of proven work is the best for whatever application you are pursuing.
The criteria of what is "best" can vary. However as a project manager I place a high weight on what my team (which may be only myself) is familiar with. So if your boys and girls are crackerjack with Django idea-to-deployment-in-3 days then Python it is. Staid old JavaEE types invariably end up with -- well Java. If you are doing a reactive or SPA web-app you will end up with Javascript. Instrument control? Learn TCL.
Another highly-weighted criteria is what the available frameworks are that are most suitable for the application. I remember back decades where if you wanted to control telescopes for astronomy the choice was FOCAL for some reason. I wonder if that is still the case but I doubt it. And for some bizarre reason MUMPS was the base for many hospital/healthcare based apps.
Too many people dwell over the merits of C vs. C++ vs. C# vs. Java vs. Python vs. Ruby vs. Javascript vs. Swift vs. what-ever-the-cool-thing-is-today. The arguments go on forever repeating the same points over and over and they are meaningless.
Any halfway competent software engineer can pick up a language they have never used before in a few days max. It is the libraries and frameworks that have the real learning curve. So keep on using C if that is what you are used to -- but not if you get a project where you find yourself writing a new framework that has already been done, tested, and deployed in another language. Then just suck it up and learn that language. You might surprise yourself with how enjoyable it is.
What I like about the reel is they took the trouble to print the root cause of each of the failures that were captured. It is really intimidating the number of things that can and have gone wrong with a machine like that.
You have to wonder what potential failures they haven't caught yet. Sticky throttle valve? Failed landing strut? You would think those failures should never have happened in the first place.
One question: is that landing barge manned? How would you like to have that job?
There are failed landing attempts, not rocket tests. There's a big difference. All of the primary missions of these flights succeeded.
Came here to point this out.
I know some NASA sub-contractor types who are rabidly contemptuous of SpaceX, saying things like "he doesn't even have the mission success rate of North Korea!"
Oh really? True SpaceX has probably blown up a bigger percentage of its rockets than anyone, but I wasn't aware that anyone had a reusable self-landing booster.
The technology involved is not that exotic. The argument against it being Russia is that the operation seems too amateurish and botched. That just doesn't fit with what we know of Russian covert ops. Of course they could have intentionally made it seem that way but the intended purpose in that case seems wholly obscure.
If the intent was to drive a wedge (further) between the US and Cuba then the effect of the discovery that it was not Cuba that carried out the attack then the operation will have the opposite effect.
It doesn't make any sense that the Cuban government is doing this.
From the looks of it even U.S. officials don't believe that the official Cuban government has anything to do it. I have even seen stories about Cuba willing to accommodate an FBI investigation. That would have been unthinkable in the not too distant past.
However there are a few parties around that are absolutely livid over the idea of relations between U.S. and Cuba being normalized. My money is on it turning out to be U.S.-based Cuban group whose families hated Castro for one reason or another possibly in partnership with counter-revolutionaries still in Cuba.
Less likely is someone in Cuba who thinks Raul Castro is betraying the Revolution by engaging with the U.S. But it is possible.
Could it be some rogue operation from some die-hard cold-warrior types either in some U.S. agency or an alumni of one? That would be too stupid to be believable if it weren't for the example of Oliver North and his ilk. I hope it isn't that.
I note the "IF" and I am not questioning your numbers but I got curious. Is there any practical way to transport 300 foot sections from fabrication to site? Or were you supposing each section was fabricated next to its installation site?
If it were me I would be instead looking at ways of making joining sections really inexpensive while maintaining very high tolerances.
I'll be here waiting for the news of their bankruptcy
I'll be here waiting for news of what happens to all the Equifax executives that dumped their stock in the last several months. Somehow I missed that part of the story until just recently but if there weren't securities regulations broken there then there are no securities regulations..
I had the same question. That does seem like a lot, but I bet most of them are just variants of a base model that are rationalized for different countries.
But the bigger issue is that it sounds like too grandiose a statement. (Dare I say Trumpish?)
I would think they would have had better impact and a better impression of credibility if they committed to making 2-3 models successfully. Do the others once you have proven yourself.
Another problem -- at least for alert observing engineers -- is that both Musk and Nissan have shown that in order to make a successful EV one of the best practices is to design it as an EV from scratch. VW's announcement makes it sound like they are going to squeeze batteries and electric motors into their existing ICE designs. All 300 of them. Yeah you can make it work somewhat but it doesn't sound like you will get a superior product that way. In effect they have announced that they are going to strive for mediocrity.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe its just me being spoiled but I think it is a bit of a stretch to call many of those vehicle contraptions "cars."
Still it is a great demonstration of engineering prowess. No question there.
If the prop actually does break and hits the fabric of the wing it will probably punch a hole. The sailcloth is pretty tough and doesn't rip that easily. I would expect degraded flight but not plummeting out of the sky. If wing damage did occur you would probably end up with an asymmetrical wing and worst case end up with an uncontrollable turn. That's the time to throw the chute which has a pivot joint exactly for that reason.
The models that do energy recovery have an option to fold the prop or not.
And yes most hang gliders don't really need more drag. Most pilots would rather fly longer and just recharge the battery on the ground. It isn't like it is very expensive.
There are conditions where you can get really high and you're tired and just want to get down. A speed brake would be useful then.
Some ultralights and electric hang gliders can recover energy on descent. For example the Icaro is similar to designs that do this. (I haven't flown one myself.)
Theoretically you can take off on a full charge to climb into soaring conditions, turn off the motor, windmill the prop, and recharge by basically capturing the energy gained in the lift of thermals. (i.e. solar energy). Then glide to the LZ and end up with a full charge.
I can't wait to try one.
I suppose you might be referring to the SureFly, which is a hybrid. This looks fairly promising at the spec level given that it does not seem to rely an a new generation of battery technology.
Actually I think its biggest problem will be cabin noise. So many of these concepts never get off the ground for seemingly trivial reasons, so to speak.
I thought Elon was delusional and full of shit and no way he would ever get Telsa Motors to a sustainable business model.
No, really. I read it here on /. over and over again. So it must be true.
Did I read it correctly that 3 solar masses were converted to energy? Over what period of time I wonder. Our own sun's total output would not consume all its mass over billions of years.
How big a blast zone did that leave? I can imagine star systems for light years around could have been burnt, destroying civilizations. Has anyone done the numbers?
Don't view the Sun as a beam simply transmitting gravity to Earth. Gravity waves are radiating outwards in 3D space in all directions at all times.
Well said. I would just add something someone told me once when I was pondering the same question. If the sun instantly disappeared, the Earth would continue in its orbit undisturbed for roughly eight minutes. And, of course, it would continue to be heated and lit for the same time.
How do you know that? Where is the real document that proved that?
If you are really interested in the subject you could start with the Wikipedia article. I notice that many of its citation links are broken (a constant problem there) but you can find references to many "documents" indicating that GWB basically stopped flying for the TNG before his obligation to do so was up.
However most people are more interested in defending their predetermined political position rather than looking at evidence so I have no real hope of anyone here paying attention.
If you take the fake memo out of the story you still end up with the fact that GWB skipped out on his service obligations. That has been well established and corroborated by many witnesses. However the right-wing noise machine was able to drown out all facts related to the case other than the memo's origin and I see that it is still working quite well here.
Come on. How are they going to know when the train is close?
Proximity fuses. How do they work again?
That was the year everyone became a computer typography expert.
Sad thing was the substance of the report was actually true. But that didn't matter.
The question of "why this or that language" comes up often and my stock answer is as follows:
To me the specific language is irrelevant. The reason you use a given language is because a given framework, class library, or function library is written in it and that body of proven work is the best for whatever application you are pursuing.
The criteria of what is "best" can vary. However as a project manager I place a high weight on what my team (which may be only myself) is familiar with. So if your boys and girls are crackerjack with Django idea-to-deployment-in-3 days then Python it is. Staid old JavaEE types invariably end up with -- well Java. If you are doing a reactive or SPA web-app you will end up with Javascript. Instrument control? Learn TCL.
Another highly-weighted criteria is what the available frameworks are that are most suitable for the application. I remember back decades where if you wanted to control telescopes for astronomy the choice was FOCAL for some reason. I wonder if that is still the case but I doubt it. And for some bizarre reason MUMPS was the base for many hospital/healthcare based apps.
Too many people dwell over the merits of C vs. C++ vs. C# vs. Java vs. Python vs. Ruby vs. Javascript vs. Swift vs. what-ever-the-cool-thing-is-today. The arguments go on forever repeating the same points over and over and they are meaningless.
Any halfway competent software engineer can pick up a language they have never used before in a few days max. It is the libraries and frameworks that have the real learning curve. So keep on using C if that is what you are used to -- but not if you get a project where you find yourself writing a new framework that has already been done, tested, and deployed in another language. Then just suck it up and learn that language. You might surprise yourself with how enjoyable it is.
What I like about the reel is they took the trouble to print the root cause of each of the failures that were captured. It is really intimidating the number of things that can and have gone wrong with a machine like that.
You have to wonder what potential failures they haven't caught yet. Sticky throttle valve? Failed landing strut? You would think those failures should never have happened in the first place.
One question: is that landing barge manned? How would you like to have that job?
There are failed landing attempts, not rocket tests. There's a big difference. All of the primary missions of these flights succeeded.
Came here to point this out.
I know some NASA sub-contractor types who are rabidly contemptuous of SpaceX, saying things like "he doesn't even have the mission success rate of North Korea!"
Oh really? True SpaceX has probably blown up a bigger percentage of its rockets than anyone, but I wasn't aware that anyone had a reusable self-landing booster.
My guess is Russia.
The technology involved is not that exotic. The argument against it being Russia is that the operation seems too amateurish and botched. That just doesn't fit with what we know of Russian covert ops. Of course they could have intentionally made it seem that way but the intended purpose in that case seems wholly obscure.
If the intent was to drive a wedge (further) between the US and Cuba then the effect of the discovery that it was not Cuba that carried out the attack then the operation will have the opposite effect.
It doesn't make any sense that the Cuban government is doing this.
From the looks of it even U.S. officials don't believe that the official Cuban government has anything to do it. I have even seen stories about Cuba willing to accommodate an FBI investigation. That would have been unthinkable in the not too distant past.
However there are a few parties around that are absolutely livid over the idea of relations between U.S. and Cuba being normalized. My money is on it turning out to be U.S.-based Cuban group whose families hated Castro for one reason or another possibly in partnership with counter-revolutionaries still in Cuba.
Less likely is someone in Cuba who thinks Raul Castro is betraying the Revolution by engaging with the U.S. But it is possible.
Could it be some rogue operation from some die-hard cold-warrior types either in some U.S. agency or an alumni of one? That would be too stupid to be believable if it weren't for the example of Oliver North and his ilk. I hope it isn't that.
Any word on what they were selling to "jew haters?"
IF you could do 300 foot sections of tube ...
I note the "IF" and I am not questioning your numbers but I got curious. Is there any practical way to transport 300 foot sections from fabrication to site? Or were you supposing each section was fabricated next to its installation site?
If it were me I would be instead looking at ways of making joining sections really inexpensive while maintaining very high tolerances.
Who could have predicted that consumer privacy would be a lesser concern than revenue flow to industry trade groups?
As a Jetbrains Professional subscription user, I don't see how this affects me one way or the other.
Can anyone here say if the upgrade is going to force conversion to AFS?
If they were true advanced electric vehicles they had a linear engine in each wheel.
Are you talking about a motor in each hub? (Seen that as far back as the '60s in Popular Science)
That idea has been considered and rejected for multiple reasons as a bad idea. Particularly if you are designing a vehicle for high speed.
This why not inwheel hub engines thread on Telsa's site hits the major issues.
I'll be here waiting for the news of their bankruptcy
I'll be here waiting for news of what happens to all the Equifax executives that dumped their stock in the last several months. Somehow I missed that part of the story until just recently but if there weren't securities regulations broken there then there are no securities regulations..
what do the HECK do they have *300 models* for?
I had the same question. That does seem like a lot, but I bet most of them are just variants of a base model that are rationalized for different countries.
But the bigger issue is that it sounds like too grandiose a statement. (Dare I say Trumpish?) I would think they would have had better impact and a better impression of credibility if they committed to making 2-3 models successfully. Do the others once you have proven yourself.
Another problem -- at least for alert observing engineers -- is that both Musk and Nissan have shown that in order to make a successful EV one of the best practices is to design it as an EV from scratch. VW's announcement makes it sound like they are going to squeeze batteries and electric motors into their existing ICE designs. All 300 of them. Yeah you can make it work somewhat but it doesn't sound like you will get a superior product that way. In effect they have announced that they are going to strive for mediocrity.