[Hydrogen flame is] colourless,... you must be looking at a fairly exotic hydrogen to see the flames burst forth.
Not really. Yes, it is true that pure hydrogen burns with a very pale blue flame. But if you put a broom in a hydrogen flame, it of course flares brilliantly. That is one way in which you find hydrogen leaks which have ignited. Hindenburg contained some 15 tons of cotton fabric based gas cells and outer covering. You essentially have a 15 ton broom in a seven million cubic foot hydrogen fire. And that is going to make one Hell of a brilliant flare.
You can't separate the burning hydrogen from the other flammable materials that were involved, but that doesn't change the fact that the fire is hydrogen driven. The flame front races ahead through the hydrogen gas cells and the outer covering is ignited from behind as it progresses.
Sorry I didn't have access to the links at the time. I vividly remember the months of discussion on the airship mailing list, in which all aspects of the Hindenburg disaster were exhaustively thrashed out, and all the experts concluded the revisionist theory was bunk.
The revisonist theory requires the covering material to have burned at a rate of 600 cm per second. Actual tests showed the true rate of burning is at least 1000 times slower.
can you back this urban legend thing up with some links?
Yes. Sorry I didn't have access to the links at the time. I vividly remember the months of discussion on the airship mailing list, in which all aspects of the Hindenburg disaster were exhaustively trashed out, and all the experts concluded the revisionist theory was bunk.
The revisonist theory requires the covering material to have burned at a rate of 600 cm per second. Actual tests showed the true rate of burning is at least 1000 times slower.
the skin was tested to be more flammable than another design that was adopted for the rest of the fleet.
References on this point are not decisive. What is decisive is when you ignite a sample and see how slowly it burns.
Some dozens of other hydrogen filled airships burned catastrophically without benefit of this supposed legendary unique covering material. Even discounting those due to military action, a large proportion of all hydrogen filled airships burned catastrophically, while no helium filled airship ever burned catastrophically.
The Hindenburg didn't go up in flames because of the hydrogen gas inside, it was due to the outer skin which was made from a rocket fuel like substance.
Bain is wrong. The covering was not anything like rocket fuel because the powdered aluminum and powdered iron were not mixed together; they were applied in separate layers. When ignited, both authentic samples of the treated covering, and replicated material, burn quite slowly and not spectacularly at all.
Hydrogen burns without much of a visible flame, but witnesses described the fire as extremely colorful.
Bain is not thinking very deeply, or is pretending not to. Yes, hydrogen burning alone is pale blue, and not bright at all. But if you stick a broom in the pale jet, it will flare brightly. That is one way that is used to find hydrogen leaks that have ignited. The Hindenburg contained some 15 tons of fabric plus other assorted flammable materials. That is a 15 ton broom in a seven million cubic foot hydrogen flame. Yeah, that is going to make one Hell of a bright flare.
Anyway, the powdered Al and iron oxide in the paint on the Hindenburg is essentailly the same formula as thermite, an incindiary bomb ingredient and also used in industrial welding.
This is an urban legend. At first glance the theory is plausible; however... Thermite needs to have the components mixed together. The two powdered metals on Hindenburg were applied in separate layers. Experiments with both samples of the original covering and replicated material show that it burns quite slowly and unspectacularly.
Watching the available moving film record plainly shows that Hindenburg burned from the inside as the gas flame raced ahead and the covering ignited in multiple separate sections as it was heated from behind.
Ah yes , but you can emulate most of that in C: "Exception Handling" setjmp(), longjmp()
Setjmp is in no way comparable to C++ exceptions. The essence of C++ exceptions is the way automatics on the stack are magically cleaned up. And if you use smart pointer automatics, you can clean up stuff on the heap. This is key to preventing memory leaks. Setjmp offers no way to do this.
"References"... they produce the same code as that using pointers.
The point is not what they compile to, but that they are safer as well as syntactically nicer. There is no reference arithmetic like pointer arithmetic. With pointers, there is nothing to ensure that the pointer will always point to a valid object.
Why [do you call my post a troll]? I was just looking for a decent analogy.
Well, I don't think you found one. I think the reason may have been that there is no moderation choice for "off the wall analogy", and "troll" was the next best choice from a far from perfect list of choices.
So you think Microsoft is like Israel and Mozilla is like the Palestinians (there never having been a Palestine, what are called Palestinians being the descendants of nomadic tribes). Not a "perfect analogy"? It's bizarrely skewed.
Let's see -
Microsoft = mighty and huge. Israel = a tiny population surrounded by overwhelmingly superior numbers.
Mozilla = an effort by underdogs to group together and make a better piece of software than Microsoft, not just focus on their big bad enemy and lament their life. Palestinians = well... not that!
You suggest that Israel has the support from outside groups. Aside from Jewish organizations and the almost sole national friend (hardly ally) in the US, it is the Palestinians for whom almost every nation and international group is in the tank. No matter what terrorist horrors they perpetrate, which are answered never in kind but only by protective actions.
I haven't seen the film but if they did refer to first world war as "World War One" before or during the second world war then that probably wouldn't make much sense. The second world was limited to eurasia and northern africa up until pearl harbour when it became a real world war.
Obviously I agree with you about using the specific term World War One before a following world war. I do not know if the term was used in the dialog; certainly the post didn't specify.
Regarding what it takes for a war to be a world war, it's an interesting question. I don't believe there was any appreciable action in the far east or the Pacific at any time in World War One. Does it really require the involvement of the US to be a world war? Would World War One have been just The Great European War had not the US been involved?
Man are you confused. World War One was 1914-1918. It was talked about quite a bit in 1939, actually. Why should that surprise you? World War Two was 1939 (1941 for the US) to 1945. Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP = "Nazi") came to power in 1933/34. And you are surprised about people talking about this in 1939... why?
History. Without it, you end up with crap like the current Iraq war "strategy" (HA!) promulgated by nitwits like those currently in charge.
All that said, the film is entertainment - actually fantasy. It's not supposed to be excruciatingly perfect in historical detail.
Perhaps OLEDs will lead to 300dpi displays, or at least 160dpi. ~72 just don't cut it.
The monitor on my notebook (X1000 with 1920x1200, 15.4") is 147 dpi. It didn't cost much more than a typical 1024 or 1280 display.
The only disadvantage is that neither Windows nor linux scales all GUI elements properly. If I make the text the size I like, all my dialog boxes are way too small, the labels don't fit in the buttons, the title bars and widgets in them are too small, etc. Windows and X are both still riddled with assumptions about dpi not being this high.
As someone who lives in Colorado... I can tell you that the northern Colorado / southern Wyoming areas... are seriously windswept. Nonstop, hard wind.
Looks like the scientific data is not impressed with the winds in your area. The Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and into Texas are significantly more windy. Right on both coasts there are also much windier areas. The real wind is found out at sea, though. Looks like all the white dots (highest wind) are over the sea and the great lakes.
Living on Cape Cod, which is basically at sea, I can tell you that during the windy season (winter) it gets pretty bad here.
Actually, I have talked to a number of people about it personally, and have yet to find anyone who thinks generator towers are ugly. These NIMBY-sayers we hear about seem to be mostly fictitious.
Since I live on Cape Cod, I think I am well qualified to say that your supposition is false. The NIMBY-sayers are very real and powerful, and they have the upper hand. Cape Cod is an extremely large country club / playground for the affluent with a shrinking proportion of normal working Joes. Modest bungalows with no water view have soared to a half a million dollars. Do you really think the bulk of the Cape Cod population has any sense of realism?
It was just a simple question. Anyone out there understand why this is classed as a troll?
Sorry, I don't. Seems eccentric to me. Too bad there's no system for moderators to attach short explanations so we would know what they were thinking.
Then again, since labeling a post "troll" is an ad hominem, there might not be terribly interesting to the moderators' line of thought in this case. See Troll
TOS drew a bit on western plot devices... and with maybe one notable exception, it did this without referencing the 20th century directly...
Well, I can think of two notable references right off the top of my head: the one set on the Nazi planet, and the one set on the Chicago gangster plant. I'm pretty sure there were a lot more than these.
Minor correction. The secondary loop is not SUPPOSED to be radioactive. When the secondary loop does become radioactive, that is a sign that Something Bad Has Happened. You know, Something Bad like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. (And yes, I know those two were not this precise scenario; they only go to show that various Bad Things can happen. Things you don't intend.)
It would take years to design and certify new planes or new variations with such large structural changes, and decades to finish phasing them in for the entire fleet. Hell, it's taking years just to get reinforced cockpit doors.
Now, in your solution, would you allow flight attendants to communicate with the flight crew, e.g. to tell them there is a fire in the cabin, or someone is having a heart attack and they need to divert? Because, if so, what flight crew will ignore terrorist demands if they start killing all 400 passengers one by one? Maybe a robot flight crew, that's the only one I can imagine. But then you still have the problem of not being able to inform the robot that the situation requires a change in the flight plan (fire, heart attack, etc). Or, if you allow that to happen, even via the ground, you still have the problem of the terrorists killing off the passengers while taunting the guys on the ground. Maybe you think officials on the ground can stand up to that pressure. I don't.
And, would you allow axes or other heavy tools in the cockpit to use in case of a crash landing? If so, do you really think your reinforced and doorless cockpit wall is going to stand up to them without weighing enough to cut the payload in half?
You are ill informed. The ValuJet fire was caused by improperly deactivated oxygen GENERATORS, not TANKS. The smoke came from the fire ignited by the oxygen generators. Your own citation tells you that.
Big difference. Oxygen generators work via a chemical reaction, and can be quite dangerous.
Oxygen is non flammable. Check an MSDS sheet. It supports combustion, which is a different thing than combusting.
I don't have a TNT equivalent, but MONT BLANC was actually carrying 35 tons of benzol, 300 rounds of ammunition, 10 tons of gun cotton, 2,300 tons of picric acid (used in explosives), and 200 tons of TNT.
"they aren't trying to prevent him from working at Western Digital, just the read/write head division of WD."
Oh, that would work real good:-) So (better yet to your idea) they just hire him for the HR or PR division and he fills in a little over at the read/write head division (from his own desk at HR or PR of course) in his spare time.
"Such [non-compete] clauses are VERY Anti-American. They give the employer TOTAL power over the employee and violate the spirit of capitalism. Indeed, noncompetes are in many ways a SOCIALIST idea..."
Well, they are a dark ages idea, a hangover of serfdom, but I think may be better characterized as a feature of corporatist hegemony rather than socialism.
Slashdot Mirror
[Hydrogen flame is] colourless, ... you must be looking at a fairly exotic hydrogen to see the flames burst forth.
Not really. Yes, it is true that pure hydrogen burns with a very pale blue flame. But if you put a broom in a hydrogen flame, it of course flares brilliantly. That is one way in which you find hydrogen leaks which have ignited. Hindenburg contained some 15 tons of cotton fabric based gas cells and outer covering. You essentially have a 15 ton broom in a seven million cubic foot hydrogen fire. And that is going to make one Hell of a brilliant flare.
You can't separate the burning hydrogen from the other flammable materials that were involved, but that doesn't change the fact that the fire is hydrogen driven. The flame front races ahead through the hydrogen gas cells and the outer covering is ignited from behind as it progresses.
Source?
Sorry I didn't have access to the links at the time. I vividly remember the months of discussion on the airship mailing list, in which all aspects of the Hindenburg disaster were exhaustively thrashed out, and all the experts concluded the revisionist theory was bunk.
Debunking exaggerated flammability claims
The revisonist theory requires the covering material to have burned at a rate of 600 cm per second. Actual tests showed the true rate of burning is at least 1000 times slower.
Lots of good links
can you back this urban legend thing up with some links?
Yes. Sorry I didn't have access to the links at the time. I vividly remember the months of discussion on the airship mailing list, in which all aspects of the Hindenburg disaster were exhaustively trashed out, and all the experts concluded the revisionist theory was bunk.
Debunking exaggerated flammability claims
The revisonist theory requires the covering material to have burned at a rate of 600 cm per second. Actual tests showed the true rate of burning is at least 1000 times slower.
Lots of good links
the skin was tested to be more flammable than another design that was adopted for the rest of the fleet.
References on this point are not decisive. What is decisive is when you ignite a sample and see how slowly it burns.
Some dozens of other hydrogen filled airships burned catastrophically without benefit of this supposed legendary unique covering material. Even discounting those due to military action, a large proportion of all hydrogen filled airships burned catastrophically, while no helium filled airship ever burned catastrophically.
The Hindenburg didn't go up in flames because of the hydrogen gas inside, it was due to the outer skin which was made from a rocket fuel like substance.
Bain is wrong. The covering was not anything like rocket fuel because the powdered aluminum and powdered iron were not mixed together; they were applied in separate layers. When ignited, both authentic samples of the treated covering, and replicated material, burn quite slowly and not spectacularly at all.
Hydrogen burns without much of a visible flame, but witnesses described the fire as extremely colorful.
Bain is not thinking very deeply, or is pretending not to. Yes, hydrogen burning alone is pale blue, and not bright at all. But if you stick a broom in the pale jet, it will flare brightly. That is one way that is used to find hydrogen leaks that have ignited. The Hindenburg contained some 15 tons of fabric plus other assorted flammable materials. That is a 15 ton broom in a seven million cubic foot hydrogen flame. Yeah, that is going to make one Hell of a bright flare.
They said the hydrogen would have escaped before it had a chance to ignite and explode.
They are wrong. I guess they didn't pay much attention to the huge blast of burning hydrogen erupting from the nose that is plainly visible on film.
The covering in the area is not yet aflame when the fire busts forth.
Anyway, the powdered Al and iron oxide in the paint on the Hindenburg is essentailly the same formula as thermite, an incindiary bomb ingredient and also used in industrial welding.
... Thermite needs to have the components mixed together. The two powdered metals on Hindenburg were applied in separate layers. Experiments with both samples of the original covering and replicated material show that it burns quite slowly and unspectacularly.
This is an urban legend. At first glance the theory is plausible; however
Watching the available moving film record plainly shows that Hindenburg burned from the inside as the gas flame raced ahead and the covering ignited in multiple separate sections as it was heated from behind.
Ah yes , but you can emulate most of that in C:
... they produce the same code as that using pointers.
"Exception Handling"
setjmp(), longjmp()
Setjmp is in no way comparable to C++ exceptions. The essence of C++ exceptions is the way automatics on the stack are magically cleaned up. And if you use smart pointer automatics, you can clean up stuff on the heap. This is key to preventing memory leaks. Setjmp offers no way to do this.
"References"
The point is not what they compile to, but that they are safer as well as syntactically nicer. There is no reference arithmetic like pointer arithmetic. With pointers, there is nothing to ensure that the pointer will always point to a valid object.
Why [do you call my post a troll]? I was just looking for a decent analogy.
... not that!
Well, I don't think you found one. I think the reason may have been that there is no moderation choice for "off the wall analogy", and "troll" was the next best choice from a far from perfect list of choices.
So you think Microsoft is like Israel and Mozilla is like the Palestinians (there never having been a Palestine, what are called Palestinians being the descendants of nomadic tribes). Not a "perfect analogy"? It's bizarrely skewed.
Let's see -
Microsoft = mighty and huge. Israel = a tiny population surrounded by overwhelmingly superior numbers.
Mozilla = an effort by underdogs to group together and make a better piece of software than Microsoft, not just focus on their big bad enemy and lament their life. Palestinians = well
You suggest that Israel has the support from outside groups. Aside from Jewish organizations and the almost sole national friend (hardly ally) in the US, it is the Palestinians for whom almost every nation and international group is in the tank. No matter what terrorist horrors they perpetrate, which are answered never in kind but only by protective actions.
There is no such thing as a Windows 2000 49.7 day bug that causes an OS problem.
I thought so, too, but this persuaded me differently: RPCSS bug
(RPCSS being an integral part of the OS, and suddenly burning a huge amount of CPU cycles being a bug)
At least for server versions of NT and 2000, and my money is on the same thing happening in client versions if you run them long enough.
You are the only twit who called anyone a moron in this thread, expletive qualified or otherwise.
Whether the grandparent kills himself or not, you are entitled to ponder your own sad life.
I haven't seen the film but if they did refer to first world war as "World War One" before or during the second world war then that probably wouldn't make much sense. The second world was limited to eurasia and northern africa up until pearl harbour when it became a real world war.
Obviously I agree with you about using the specific term World War One before a following world war. I do not know if the term was used in the dialog; certainly the post didn't specify.
Regarding what it takes for a war to be a world war, it's an interesting question. I don't believe there was any appreciable action in the far east or the Pacific at any time in World War One. Does it really require the involvement of the US to be a world war? Would World War One have been just The Great European War had not the US been involved?
Man are you confused. World War One was 1914-1918. It was talked about quite a bit in 1939, actually. Why should that surprise you? World War Two was 1939 (1941 for the US) to 1945. Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP = "Nazi") came to power in 1933/34. And you are surprised about people talking about this in 1939 ... why?
History. Without it, you end up with crap like the current Iraq war "strategy" (HA!) promulgated by nitwits like those currently in charge.
All that said, the film is entertainment - actually fantasy. It's not supposed to be excruciatingly perfect in historical detail.
Perhaps OLEDs will lead to 300dpi displays, or at least 160dpi. ~72 just don't cut it.
The monitor on my notebook (X1000 with 1920x1200, 15.4") is 147 dpi. It didn't cost much more than a typical 1024 or 1280 display.
The only disadvantage is that neither Windows nor linux scales all GUI elements properly. If I make the text the size I like, all my dialog boxes are way too small, the labels don't fit in the buttons, the title bars and widgets in them are too small, etc. Windows and X are both still riddled with assumptions about dpi not being this high.
As someone who lives in Colorado ... I can tell you that the northern Colorado / southern Wyoming areas ... are seriously windswept. Nonstop, hard wind.
Looks like the scientific data is not impressed with the winds in your area. The Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and into Texas are significantly more windy. Right on both coasts there are also much windier areas. The real wind is found out at sea, though. Looks like all the white dots (highest wind) are over the sea and the great lakes.
Living on Cape Cod, which is basically at sea, I can tell you that during the windy season (winter) it gets pretty bad here.
Actually, I have talked to a number of people about it personally, and have yet to find anyone who thinks generator towers are ugly. These NIMBY-sayers we hear about seem to be mostly fictitious.
Since I live on Cape Cod, I think I am well qualified to say that your supposition is false. The NIMBY-sayers are very real and powerful, and they have the upper hand. Cape Cod is an extremely large country club / playground for the affluent with a shrinking proportion of normal working Joes. Modest bungalows with no water view have soared to a half a million dollars. Do you really think the bulk of the Cape Cod population has any sense of realism?
That is not a TM8800 board. The processor it comes with has truly pathetic performance.
It was just a simple question. Anyone out there understand why this is classed as a troll?
Sorry, I don't. Seems eccentric to me. Too bad there's no system for moderators to attach short explanations so we would know what they were thinking.
Then again, since labeling a post "troll" is an ad hominem, there might not be terribly interesting to the moderators' line of thought in this case. See Troll
TOS drew a bit on western plot devices ... and with maybe one notable exception, it did this without referencing the 20th century directly ...
Well, I can think of two notable references right off the top of my head: the one set on the Nazi planet, and the one set on the Chicago gangster plant. I'm pretty sure there were a lot more than these.
The secondary loop is not radioactive.
Minor correction. The secondary loop is not SUPPOSED to be radioactive. When the secondary loop does become radioactive, that is a sign that Something Bad Has Happened. You know, Something Bad like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. (And yes, I know those two were not this precise scenario; they only go to show that various Bad Things can happen. Things you don't intend.)
It would take years to design and certify new planes or new variations with such large structural changes, and decades to finish phasing them in for the entire fleet. Hell, it's taking years just to get reinforced cockpit doors.
Now, in your solution, would you allow flight attendants to communicate with the flight crew, e.g. to tell them there is a fire in the cabin, or someone is having a heart attack and they need to divert? Because, if so, what flight crew will ignore terrorist demands if they start killing all 400 passengers one by one? Maybe a robot flight crew, that's the only one I can imagine. But then you still have the problem of not being able to inform the robot that the situation requires a change in the flight plan (fire, heart attack, etc). Or, if you allow that to happen, even via the ground, you still have the problem of the terrorists killing off the passengers while taunting the guys on the ground. Maybe you think officials on the ground can stand up to that pressure. I don't.
And, would you allow axes or other heavy tools in the cockpit to use in case of a crash landing? If so, do you really think your reinforced and doorless cockpit wall is going to stand up to them without weighing enough to cut the payload in half?
You are ill informed. The ValuJet fire was caused by improperly deactivated oxygen GENERATORS, not TANKS. The smoke came from the fire ignited by the oxygen generators. Your own citation tells you that.
Big difference. Oxygen generators work via a chemical reaction, and can be quite dangerous.
Oxygen is non flammable. Check an MSDS sheet. It supports combustion, which is a different thing than combusting.
I don't have a TNT equivalent, but MONT BLANC was actually carrying 35 tons of benzol, 300 rounds of ammunition, 10 tons of gun cotton, 2,300 tons of picric acid (used in explosives), and 200 tons of TNT.
"they aren't trying to prevent him from working at Western Digital, just the read/write head division of WD."
:-) So (better yet to your idea) they just hire him for the HR or PR division and he fills in a little over at the read/write head division (from his own desk at HR or PR of course) in his spare time.
Oh, that would work real good
"Such [non-compete] clauses are VERY Anti-American. They give the employer TOTAL power over the employee and violate the spirit of capitalism. Indeed, noncompetes are in many ways a SOCIALIST idea..."
Well, they are a dark ages idea, a hangover of serfdom, but I think may be better characterized as a feature of corporatist hegemony rather than socialism.