There is research going on in that area, but the likely next big thing in airplane power will probably be diesels. Since they can run on jet fuel, there will be no need for 100ll and aviation can standardize on one type of fuel.
Been there, done that...
There were some diesel aircraft in the 40/50's. Diesel engines are very heavy...
Most of us don't come out and say: "nice to meet you; there is no god".
I'd bet a lot of people who you know, who are morally "normal", are atheists and you just haven't realized it.
I am an athiest and independant of that, I realize that the world works better when: You treat others as you would like to be treated... Nothing that does no harm can be wrong... and a few other guidlines.
So I try to live that way. In my experience, most athiest are of a similar mind.
Both our major party candidates for President are on the record favoring illegal military interventions abroad
Which illegal military intervention is Kerry on record supporting? Not Iraq, he is on record supporting the president having the authority to use the military. It is a right wing spin machine making people believe that he supported going into Iraq. Now that we are there though, he supports being responsible for the mess we made.
I haven't seen US territory get hit with another major attack in the last three years.
Q: How long was is between the 9/11 and the previous AlQ ueda attack on US territory?
A: About 8 years.
Can we, from this data, conclude that Clinton was a great preventer of terrorism? After all he kept us from being attacked for 7 years...
Al Queda doesn't, and never has, attacked frequently; they attack grandly. The fact that 3 years have gone by since a major attack is meaningless. They probably wouldn't have attacked again by now even if we had been sitting on our thumbs.
Was your friend in East Hartford? If they were in aerodynamics or combustion I probably know them...
I spent time in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Turbine Aero (but I was part of a team on an augmenter too).
Anywho... I am pretty sure you can use hydrogen in a diesel, but I know that you can't use a catalytic heat source for a diesel, which you can for a gas turbine...
Also they do heat recovery for most land/marine gas turbines.
Gas turbines are highly efficent, but not as efficient as the REALLY big diesels; the 80% quoted above is ridiculous 40's is not unreasonable though (for a ground/marine installation).
Where gas turbines kick ass is power/weight and power/volume. And about the NOx, gas turbines do that too... It is a byproduct of high temperature combustion of hydrocarbons, which is unfortunatly the only way to get efficient combustion based power (from oil).
There is, of coarse, an optimal mean time to replacement somewhere between daily replacement and never replacing, I suspect it is less frequent replacement than we are currently using.
1.) Same reason why no company has build the perfect car that last forever. Could we, absolutely? Will corporate america allow it, hell no!
ummm... Technology is constantly improving, if we built cars that lasted for ever none of us would benifit from new tech in our cars.
Suppose that 20 years ago they started to build cars that would last 100 years. How many more people would have died without ABS and air bags? How much more oil whould we have pumped out of the ground becasue we didn't have computer controlled fuel injectors. And how much dirtier would the air be without the improvments in polution control?
Even if we could build a car that would last for ever, I don't think we should...
In large aircraft gas turbine design, and manufacturing, there are 3 main companys, at least 2 of which (GE, United Technologies) are not just aerospace companies, but rather do everything from air conditioners, to elevators, to aerospace (I worked for one of them, in the engine division). There are at least a dozen or so contracting organizations for each step of the design/construction/testing of such products, which compete for projects, frequently against members of the companies responsible for the overall product.
In my observation, the same stuff that lbmouse mentioned about budgets getting spent or going away causing waste happens in large companies too. Only there are twists... I saw managers that spent their budgets frivolously, because they new their projects were important, and that all they needed to do to get more funding was ask. I also saw managers not spend their alloted budget, at the expence of getting their job done, becasue, at times teh incentive to save money was greater than the incentive to do good work.
The company I worked for also would routinly pinch pennies at the expence of dollars worth of productivity. They would shut down the AC on hot summer days, because electricity was expensive, work in office areas ground to a halt with a long pants dress code in effect and 80+ degree office temperatures and windows that can't be opened. but since low productivity of workers couldn't be found on a balance sheet, and electricity could... Nobody cared. I even did an analysis based on a an asumption of a 50% cutback in unpaid overtime (a conservative estimate on my part) among engineers alone (left out financial types), and the cost of compensating an engineer, vs the stated savings from power consumption reduction, I got a factor of 5 increase in expences, I showed it to my boss, and he killed it, because saving money was the way to get promoted, and getting work done didn't matter.
I never said the govt was better at it, just that his explaination was overly simplistic... I am inclined to think it is deficit spending that stimulates economic growth, but that this is unsustainable, and the govt should run a surpluss during fat times and a (sane) deficit during lean times, so that the average is a balanced budget.
BTW, I used to agree with you, but then I worked for a large company for 3 years, it was worse than either of the 2 state funded jobs I have had (in terms of waste).
That theory ignores government spending as an economic stimulus. Money the government stops spending means employees of the govt and govt contractors are forced to seek other jobs.
Charity only does so much because our means to donate is severely hampered by government
People have a hell of a lot more purchasing power now than people did 50 years ago, right? Why are people not giving with the additional purchasing power?
I propose that the answer is that they are too busy keeping up with the Jones's. If everyone paid less taxes, everyone would have more money (an idea I don't nesesarily agree with, but for arguments sake...), do you think that people would give it to charity? No, some asshole is going to by a nicer car, then someone else with think they NEED that bling bling. More and more people will commit their additional disposable income to purchaces that they feel they need (do you drive a used honda civic, or compairable vehicle?).
The people that give now, after taxes, would keep giving. The people who think they can't afford to give now, will not think they can afford to give with low taxes.
I can't find any referances now (if any of you can post a link, I would appreciate it greatly), but I read a study a while back that showed people who give, give regardless of how much they have, and people who don't give, don't give regardless of how much they have.
1,2. If Bush was bashing all war veterans it certainly wouldn't work out too well for him...
They are saying that a couple of specific war veterans are off their rocker from 5 years in a camp, and can't be trusted as commander in chief, or lied about their patriotism in times of war (without much evidence).
as for why it isn't getting me, I am not alone, there are a lot of us who see through it, I don't claim to know why more of us don't see through it.
3. So things may not be as bad as I was led to believe... I would like to know what the cut off income is though...
Here's another way to look at it. Your (mistaken, I believe) perception that Bush attacked Kerry over Vietnam obviously irritated you. That's natural -- it would irritate most Americans. Now: Given that, do you really think it would be wise for Bush to do that? Of course not -- it would be monumentally foolish. Bush is hugely popular in the military, and he didn't get that way be criticizing war veterans for their service.
The problem is that it doesn't tick off most americans, they lap it up... And Karl Rove figured this out.
Using your logic one could deduce that Bush did not, in fact, slash veterans benefits. He is after all hugely popular with the military, and cutting veterans benefits could cost him that.
Do you think that someone who NEVER changes his mind, despite new facts is better than someone who DOES change his mind when presented with new information?
I agree with you, I just like to point out the hypocracy of supporting Bush while attacking Kerry over flip flopping.
John Kerry on explaining his vote against the $87 billion appropriation:
"I voted for the appropriation before I voted against it."
But that one was actually consistant. Let me explain.
Kerry supported the approptiation when it was funded through the sale of Iraqi oil, but opposed it when funded by the tax payers of the United States. This is an entirely consistant opinion and is most certainly not a flip-flop.
The Bush MO is to attack his opponant for his weakness (attacking both Kerry and McCain over Vietnam...)
Calling Kerry a Flip Flopper is another example of this.
read this site, it has 30 eaxamples of MAJOR flip flops from bush and his administration.
If you think that changing ones position is a bad thing, I suggest you rethink (yes I am assuming you support him) supporting GWB.
The site also fails to list my personal favorite: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'" - George W. Bush
As far as airing on cable, that is another matter. I imagine he could find some movie channel (or perhaps Comedy Central) that would be willing to aire the film before November. I truly doubt that such an action would do much since I'd wager most folks with access to said cable channels have already seen the movie.
WTF!?!?
Why do you say that? I know many people who have never seen any of moores work, not for lack of financial resources. They do not want to see any of it, because they are convinced that it is all lies. They then go on to say such witty things as "if guns are the problem, then why does Canada not have so many murders?" when attempting to slam BFC. The idoits have obviosly never seen the movie, moore brings this up in the film, repeatedly.
There is a large portion of the population that is willfully ignorant.
I respect you for being a conservative Bush voter (although I find little conservative about Bush) who saw the movie, and was aparantly able to look at it honestly. Unfortunalty, you are the minority.
On a side note, it should be easy to look at the ticket sales of F911 and the cable subscription rates, and get some sence of the accuracy of your statment, but I lack the time and motivation to do so...
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the NATO action?
I am not happy about it, but I don't think it was illegal...
There is research going on in that area, but the likely next big thing in airplane power will probably be diesels. Since they can run on jet fuel, there will be no need for 100ll and aviation can standardize on one type of fuel.
Been there, done that...
There were some diesel aircraft in the 40/50's. Diesel engines are very heavy...
... than you think you do.
Most of us don't come out and say: "nice to meet you; there is no god".
I'd bet a lot of people who you know, who are morally "normal", are atheists and you just haven't realized it.
I am an athiest and independant of that, I realize that the world works better when:
You treat others as you would like to be treated...
Nothing that does no harm can be wrong...
and a few other guidlines.
So I try to live that way. In my experience, most athiest are of a similar mind.
What about the embassy attacks in Africa in 1998? Embassies are considered US territory.
still 3+ years between attacks
Both our major party candidates for President are on the record favoring illegal military interventions abroad
Which illegal military intervention is Kerry on record supporting? Not Iraq, he is on record supporting the president having the authority to use the military. It is a right wing spin machine making people believe that he supported going into Iraq. Now that we are there though, he supports being responsible for the mess we made.
I haven't seen US territory get hit with another major attack in the last three years.
Q: How long was is between the 9/11 and the previous AlQ ueda attack on US territory?
A: About 8 years.
Can we, from this data, conclude that Clinton was a great preventer of terrorism? After all he kept us from being attacked for 7 years...
Al Queda doesn't, and never has, attacked frequently; they attack grandly. The fact that 3 years have gone by since a major attack is meaningless. They probably wouldn't have attacked again by now even if we had been sitting on our thumbs.
Pratt is where I worked...
Was your friend in East Hartford? If they were in aerodynamics or combustion I probably know them...
I spent time in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Turbine Aero (but I was part of a team on an augmenter too).
Anywho... I am pretty sure you can use hydrogen in a diesel, but I know that you can't use a catalytic heat source for a diesel, which you can for a gas turbine...
Also they do heat recovery for most land/marine gas turbines.
Gas turbines are highly efficent, but not as efficient as the REALLY big diesels; the 80% quoted above is ridiculous 40's is not unreasonable though (for a ground/marine installation).
Where gas turbines kick ass is power/weight and power/volume. And about the NOx, gas turbines do that too... It is a byproduct of high temperature combustion of hydrocarbons, which is unfortunatly the only way to get efficient combustion based power (from oil).
There is, of coarse, an optimal mean time to replacement somewhere between daily replacement and never replacing, I suspect it is less frequent replacement than we are currently using.
1.) Same reason why no company has build the perfect car that last forever. Could we, absolutely? Will corporate america allow it, hell no!
ummm... Technology is constantly improving, if we built cars that lasted for ever none of us would benifit from new tech in our cars.
Suppose that 20 years ago they started to build cars that would last 100 years. How many more people would have died without ABS and air bags? How much more oil whould we have pumped out of the ground becasue we didn't have computer controlled fuel injectors. And how much dirtier would the air be without the improvments in polution control?
Even if we could build a car that would last for ever, I don't think we should...
In large aircraft gas turbine design, and manufacturing, there are 3 main companys, at least 2 of which (GE, United Technologies) are not just aerospace companies, but rather do everything from air conditioners, to elevators, to aerospace (I worked for one of them, in the engine division). There are at least a dozen or so contracting organizations for each step of the design/construction/testing of such products, which compete for projects, frequently against members of the companies responsible for the overall product.
In my observation, the same stuff that lbmouse mentioned about budgets getting spent or going away causing waste happens in large companies too. Only there are twists... I saw managers that spent their budgets frivolously, because they new their projects were important, and that all they needed to do to get more funding was ask. I also saw managers not spend their alloted budget, at the expence of getting their job done, becasue, at times teh incentive to save money was greater than the incentive to do good work.
The company I worked for also would routinly pinch pennies at the expence of dollars worth of productivity. They would shut down the AC on hot summer days, because electricity was expensive, work in office areas ground to a halt with a long pants dress code in effect and 80+ degree office temperatures and windows that can't be opened. but since low productivity of workers couldn't be found on a balance sheet, and electricity could... Nobody cared. I even did an analysis based on a an asumption of a 50% cutback in unpaid overtime (a conservative estimate on my part) among engineers alone (left out financial types), and the cost of compensating an engineer, vs the stated savings from power consumption reduction, I got a factor of 5 increase in expences, I showed it to my boss, and he killed it, because saving money was the way to get promoted, and getting work done didn't matter.
It was bad...
Aerospace...
I never said the govt was better at it, just that his explaination was overly simplistic... I am inclined to think it is deficit spending that stimulates economic growth, but that this is unsustainable, and the govt should run a surpluss during fat times and a (sane) deficit during lean times, so that the average is a balanced budget.
BTW, I used to agree with you, but then I worked for a large company for 3 years, it was worse than either of the 2 state funded jobs I have had (in terms of waste).
That theory ignores government spending as an economic stimulus. Money the government stops spending means employees of the govt and govt contractors are forced to seek other jobs.
Charity only does so much because our means to donate is severely hampered by government
People have a hell of a lot more purchasing power now than people did 50 years ago, right? Why are people not giving with the additional purchasing power?
I propose that the answer is that they are too busy keeping up with the Jones's. If everyone paid less taxes, everyone would have more money (an idea I don't nesesarily agree with, but for arguments sake...), do you think that people would give it to charity? No, some asshole is going to by a nicer car, then someone else with think they NEED that bling bling. More and more people will commit their additional disposable income to purchaces that they feel they need (do you drive a used honda civic, or compairable vehicle?).
The people that give now, after taxes, would keep giving. The people who think they can't afford to give now, will not think they can afford to give with low taxes.
I can't find any referances now (if any of you can post a link, I would appreciate it greatly), but I read a study a while back that showed people who give, give regardless of how much they have, and people who don't give, don't give regardless of how much they have.
1,2.
If Bush was bashing all war veterans it certainly wouldn't work out too well for him...
They are saying that a couple of specific war veterans are off their rocker from 5 years in a camp, and can't be trusted as commander in chief, or lied about their patriotism in times of war (without much evidence).
as for why it isn't getting me, I am not alone, there are a lot of us who see through it, I don't claim to know why more of us don't see through it.
3. So things may not be as bad as I was led to believe... I would like to know what the cut off income is though...
Here's another way to look at it. Your (mistaken, I believe) perception that Bush attacked Kerry over Vietnam obviously irritated you. That's natural -- it would irritate most Americans. Now: Given that, do you really think it would be wise for Bush to do that? Of course not -- it would be monumentally foolish. Bush is hugely popular in the military, and he didn't get that way be criticizing war veterans for their service.
The problem is that it doesn't tick off most americans, they lap it up... And Karl Rove figured this out.
Using your logic one could deduce that Bush did not, in fact, slash veterans benefits. He is after all hugely popular with the military, and cutting veterans benefits could cost him that.
I was doing 5-10 over the limit(55 or 65, can't remember) in the right lane...snip... I gave them a few minutes to have a chance to go around me
I was in the right lane.
Not only did Kerry support going to war, he's since said publicly that he'd do it again, even in hindsight.
No, he supported giving the authority to go to war, and said that in hindsight he still would.
Do you think that someone who NEVER changes his mind, despite new facts is better than someone who DOES change his mind when presented with new information?
I agree with you, I just like to point out the hypocracy of supporting Bush while attacking Kerry over flip flopping.
But that one was actually consistant. Let me explain.
Kerry supported the approptiation when it was funded through the sale of Iraqi oil, but opposed it when funded by the tax payers of the United States. This is an entirely consistant opinion and is most certainly not a flip-flop.
Don't believe everything Dick Cheney tells you...
and F (John F Kerry) is for FLIP FLOP .
The Bush MO is to attack his opponant for his weakness (attacking both Kerry and McCain over Vietnam...)
Calling Kerry a Flip Flopper is another example of this.
read this site, it has 30 eaxamples of MAJOR flip flops from bush and his administration.
If you think that changing ones position is a bad thing, I suggest you rethink (yes I am assuming you support him) supporting GWB.
The site also fails to list my personal favorite:
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'" - George W. Bush
As far as airing on cable, that is another matter. I imagine he could find some movie channel (or perhaps Comedy Central) that would be willing to aire the film before November. I truly doubt that such an action would do much since I'd wager most folks with access to said cable channels have already seen the movie.
WTF!?!?
Why do you say that? I know many people who have never seen any of moores work, not for lack of financial resources. They do not want to see any of it, because they are convinced that it is all lies. They then go on to say such witty things as "if guns are the problem, then why does Canada not have so many murders?" when attempting to slam BFC. The idoits have obviosly never seen the movie, moore brings this up in the film, repeatedly.
There is a large portion of the population that is willfully ignorant.
I respect you for being a conservative Bush voter (although I find little conservative about Bush) who saw the movie, and was aparantly able to look at it honestly. Unfortunalty, you are the minority.
On a side note, it should be easy to look at the ticket sales of F911 and the cable subscription rates, and get some sence of the accuracy of your statment, but I lack the time and motivation to do so...
The only road CNN is in the middle of is the left had side of a four lane highway. They are the single most libral news station I have ever seen.
Don't get out much, do ya?
check these out
I watch Fox, there people may not be unbiased but atleast they don't have a problem admitting it.
Fair and Balanced. We Report You Decide. No Spin Zone.
No problems with admitting bias there...
I did, repeatedly...