As an aviation enthusiast, I followed this turn of events closely.
The concorde, while safe for all intents and purposes, has major design flaws. this was the result of not hardening the access panel to the fuel tanks, along with them being in a bad area suseptible to being hit by tire fragments when one sheds, and thirdly, being a "dog" at slow speeds, and needing quite a lot of speed to get airborne means the chances of tire failure were great.
Also of concern here, was the MTOW (Max Take-off weight) was on the verge of exceeding, but was just under the line.
We liken AC crashes to stacks of swiss cheese, when the right conditions exist, the holes can line up and stuff slips thru. This happened here.
First slice - thin skin over wing tanks Second slice - high speed needed for rotation (and takeoff) Third slice - tire technology barely able to deal with the speeds Fourth slice - MTOW used and the AC went father down the runway than it usually would have - that strip of metal would not have been hit if the AC was not close to overloaded.
The net result was a crash.
That single crash gave a safe AC bad marks enough to move it substantially up the pole as far as bad AC are concerned.
For the fact of the actual miles logged per accident rate make it look bad.
On the inverse, suprisingly, one of the most ratted on models of jets, the Boeing 737, actually has the safest marks, regardless of how ppl feel about its "rudder hardover issues". It logs more pax miles and has more AC flying than any other. Its per mile crash rate is lower than the rest.
Of course, numbers like this are subjective... I just threw out what is published, make of it what you will.
You know, they had all these ideas for rolling out the BBD, but never got to em. I started out doing ION, but the Seattle market sucked, so I volunteered to help roll it out in the Bay. Supposed to move from San Jose, to San Fran, to Portland, Then I could land back in Seattle doing the wireless, But it never transpired...
Sprint has killed ION now anyway, at least, the Low end users, and SOHO users. Think the Corp types they still ION, but they might have even pulled the plug on that...
Pitty too, ION was sweet, it was just too ahead of its time. AT&T looked at their own rip off of ION, called it INC - but they saw the issues Sprint had, and well, they chose wisely...
I installed Sprint BB for 4 months all over the Bay area/Silicon Valley - nice technology, but they oversold - you could only fit so many in a given "sector". You could put more in, but I watched speeds in one sector over another drop from 5+ Mbps to , ohh, 510 Kbps, for example. Ouch...
Also, it uses a burst system, so latency is a big issue, if your an online gamer...
And great that it might... Bastids are going to start charging a toll to cross the stupid bridge. Bad enough those of us stuck on the Olympic Penninsula having to pay buckets to take a ferry to get across Puget sound, now, the last free way to get across wont be free. Thats great when I have to get to work, and dont have cash...
Ok, I will admit ive not read the article, but just read the article last nite in the current "Popular Science" mag covering this.
you get around 10 hours of safe energy...
Not quite so, it will suffer from the same fate as other fossil fuel burning equipment does. it will need ventiation. Sure, it does not produce toxic carbon monoxide or dioxide, but it takes the 02 from the air... So, you dont produce toxins, you just take away something one needs, 02. Basically, the same deal...
Cost wise, they predicted a recharge will run 100 dollars. ouch.
I can see the use of this in must have settings - perhaps a backup for medical equipment, but its not the end all of clean energy. It takes a lot more energy put in to produce the Hydrogen fuel than you can get out of it.
Clean energy will also have to be effcient to produce. if it takes more effort, usually by non clean means, to produce less power, then your making it worse.
Slashdot Mirror
As an aviation enthusiast, I followed this turn of events closely.
The concorde, while safe for all intents and purposes, has major design flaws. this was the result of not hardening the access panel to the fuel tanks, along with them being in a bad area suseptible to being hit by tire fragments when one sheds, and thirdly, being a "dog" at slow speeds, and needing quite a lot of speed to get airborne means the chances of tire failure were great.
Also of concern here, was the MTOW (Max Take-off weight) was on the verge of exceeding, but was just under the line.
We liken AC crashes to stacks of swiss cheese, when the right conditions exist, the holes can line up and stuff slips thru. This happened here.
First slice - thin skin over wing tanks
Second slice - high speed needed for rotation (and takeoff)
Third slice - tire technology barely able to deal with the speeds
Fourth slice - MTOW used and the AC went father down the runway than it usually would have - that strip of metal would not have been hit if the AC was not close to overloaded.
The net result was a crash.
That single crash gave a safe AC bad marks enough to move it substantially up the pole as far as bad AC are concerned.
For the fact of the actual miles logged per accident rate make it look bad.
On the inverse, suprisingly, one of the most ratted on models of jets, the Boeing 737, actually has the safest marks, regardless of how ppl feel about its "rudder hardover issues". It logs more pax miles and has more AC flying than any other. Its per mile crash rate is lower than the rest.
Of course, numbers like this are subjective... I just threw out what is published, make of it what you will.
You know, they had all these ideas for rolling out the BBD, but never got to em. I started out doing ION, but the Seattle market sucked, so I volunteered to help roll it out in the Bay. Supposed to move from San Jose, to San Fran, to Portland, Then I could land back in Seattle doing the wireless, But it never transpired...
Sprint has killed ION now anyway, at least, the Low end users, and SOHO users. Think the Corp types they still ION, but they might have even pulled the plug on that...
Pitty too, ION was sweet, it was just too ahead of its time. AT&T looked at their own rip off of ION, called it INC - but they saw the issues Sprint had, and well, they chose wisely...
I installed Sprint BB for 4 months all over the Bay area /Silicon Valley - nice technology, but they oversold - you could only fit so many in a given "sector". You could put more in, but I watched speeds in one sector over another drop from 5+ Mbps to , ohh, 510 Kbps, for example. Ouch...
Also, it uses a burst system, so latency is a big issue, if your an online gamer...
And great that it might... Bastids are going to start charging a toll to cross the stupid bridge. Bad enough those of us stuck on the Olympic Penninsula having to pay buckets to take a ferry to get across Puget sound, now, the last free way to get across wont be free. Thats great when I have to get to work, and dont have cash...
At least make the Toll booths of nanotubes...
Ok, I will admit ive not read the article, but just read the article last nite in the current "Popular Science" mag covering this.
you get around 10 hours of safe energy...
Not quite so, it will suffer from the same fate as other fossil fuel burning equipment does. it will need ventiation. Sure, it does not produce toxic carbon monoxide or dioxide, but it takes the 02 from the air... So, you dont produce toxins, you just take away something one needs, 02. Basically, the same deal...
Cost wise, they predicted a recharge will run 100 dollars. ouch.
I can see the use of this in must have settings - perhaps a backup for medical equipment, but its not the end all of clean energy. It takes a lot more energy put in to produce the Hydrogen fuel than you can get out of it.
Clean energy will also have to be effcient to produce. if it takes more effort, usually by non clean means, to produce less power, then your making it worse.