However, when an airplane is hovering there is no airflow over the ailerons, and so they can't be used to correct the counter-torque.
Not quite true here: in the video, you can see that the ailerons are being used to counteract the torque. The large deflection angles, though, do indicate that there is very little airflow over the ailerons.
Let's say we do build all new residential areas with pedistrian only walkways. Who'd pick up the trash/recycling? No powered vehicles allowed, remember. How would you get that grand piano to your house? Or that large, stylish sofa? Or pool table? Or the bandsaw that weighs 400 pounds, like is in my garage/workshop? (along with an even heavier milling machine, lathe, two more bandsaws, a freaking heavy as crap spot welder (made in the 30s!), sheet metal brake, welders, and a table saw that weigh at least as much, most weigh more)
Yes, I did say the rules apply only if one is desiring AMA insurance coverage. I gave it for informative purposes; I know the project was from Canada. You do make an interesting point with the self-piloted aspect, though.
9. The operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact without enhancement other than by corrective lenses that are prescribed for the pilot. No model aircraft shall be equipped with devices which allow it to be flown to a selected location which is beyond the visual range of the pilot.
Oh heck, I'm not so sure now. Apparently there's an auto-pitch trim function (mention about halfway down this page), but not much is said on how it works.
I'm surprised that he managed to do this at all with just one gyro sensing roll rate. For small angles, the aircraft's roll and pitch axes are uncoupled (linear approximation), so I wonder how he sensed the aircraft's pitch angle.
Actually, now that I think about it, I doubt he did. Free-flight gliders that are well-trimmed will just glide around without a problem. Ultimately, we just want the plane to turn, and there are rudder-only radio-controlled aircraft out there (for example). Well-done, I say. Commendable.
If you are a chubby chaser, then you can ignore this message.
You may have meant it as a side comment, but really, people tend to forget that there are actually many different standards and ideals of attractiveness out there. If you don't believe me, go browsing around a BBW chat room or group (though that may not be your thing). The GP's preference for thin women may not be PC these days, but it's perfectly valid as well.
The point I'm trying to make is: where is the subset of women who are big and okay with it? They do exist, and there needs to be more of them. The problem is that "fat," to some men, is a woman heavier than 120 pounds. This is dreck. It's true that people in developed countries are getting fatter, but the majority of "average" and even "larger" women are not unhealthy. The stress some of them feel to be thin is not motivated by health, but by culture. This article is telling:
Look closely at the comments near the bottom of the article:
University of Adelaide head of anatomical science, Professor Maciej Henneberg said the survey results showed Australia was a nation of "healthy, cheerful, size 16 women".
"Australian women are heavier than American women by a few kilos, but it's not a major concern," Prof Henneberg said.
"I think the reason is there is a socio-economic difference. On average Australians are more affluent than Americans.
"The survey showed one third of women are obese and there is concern over this. However, size 16 women are happy and healthy."
If we really wanted to, we could strike any location on the planet with nuclear weapons within a couple hours and there's really no defense against it.
Sure, but I don't think the U.S. will be lobbing any nuclear warheads anywhere for a long time coming. The political cost, methinks, would be too great. And do we even -have- any non-nuclear ICBMs?
Weaponizing space by actually placing the weapons there doesn't really buy anyone anything.
Incorrect. You are right to say that space is already militarized, as per the title of your post (there are all sorts of DoD satellites up there), but space is not yet weaponized. Here's a direct quote from a paper by the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board entitled, "Report on A Space Roadmap for the 21st Century Aerospace Force" [warning: PDF]:
Tomorrow's Promise. The aerospace force, with the right organization, training, and equipment, could deliver precisely calibrated effects, from taking a picture to dropping a precision munition, anywhere on earth, in less than an hour from the "go" order, with surprise and immunity to most defenses. Larger-scale deployments would be lighter, faster, and more effective, and the need to station forces in foreign theaters would be greatly reduced.
The last sentence really lays out the promise of next-generation space-based weaponry and surveillance. The new doctrine of transformation is already being implemented, but it's had its share of problems, and I suspect military advisors would say there's a long way to go. Note: I found the article on the Space Roadmap from a collection of articles on the U.S. Air Force website, here. It's an exhaustive list.
"There were a few surprises," Wang notes. "We found the flat paper rises on its own as it falls, which would not happen if the force due to air is similar to that on an airfoil. Instead, the force depends strongly on the coupling between the rotating and translational motions of the object."
From this, I take that the rotational and translational motion must be coupled to produce the complex movement of the CG that she is talking about. If the rotational and translational motion were decoupled, you'd end up with simple tumbling motion like the kind you would find if you dropped a thin strip of paper (high aspect ratio) with the narrow edge facing downward. This would produce the "force due to air [that] is similar to that on an airfoil."
Perhaps the answer is closed-loop control. You're right about the simplest solution being to push back the AC of the wing. Though IANAAE (yet... I'm working on my degree), I speculate that with the decreasing cost of necessary hardware, a closed-loop control system would not be incredibly expensive to implement, depending on the bandwidth needed. I'm in no position to speak on how common or expensive the feedback control systems in commercial and military aircraft are, but on the R/C side, Helmut Lelke has already demonstrated an actively stabilized flying wing sailplane for cheap, using a PIC processor. In the article, he covers just the stability issue you speak of. Ya, I understand that aircraft carrying humans should go through much more rigorous design and testing, etc...
But wait a minute... what's to stop a spammer from sending a "legitimate-like" email from an address, and then using the same address to send a flood of spam?
How is this person advocating Linux? The only mention he makes of Linux is where it is most often used (to the best of his knowledge). The point he's trying to make is that in order for XP to work -as advertised-, one should not be able to go up to an XP machine and gain access without some sort of password barrier. If that is impossible (and most of you here are saying that it is), then isn't this a case of faulty advertising?
I don't know much about the way politics work, but I, for one, think that an opt-in list would be a great idea. Because the true problem is: when money is needed for -everything-, regardless of the nature of that thing which is being acquired, and money is limited (which it is), then increasing spending in one field necessitates decreasing spending in another, often wholly unrelated field.
When money is the issue, the question is not "Moon, or Mars?" The question is not "Shuttle, or new spaceplane?" The question isn't even "International Space Station: fly or scrap?" It becomes, "fly a shuttle... or feed the hungry?" "Space research... or cancer research?" Yes, of course I know there's corruption, and dollars don't go where they're supposed to go, but I'm talking about the principle of the matter. The principle of the matter is that there are more immediate issues here on earth, and those should be tackled first.
I don't know what NASA's future is, given such drastic budget cuts. Perhaps NASA will -ultimately- lose out to smaller start-up companies that are doing independent work to get sattelites, and humans into space (consider John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace). Or maybe ultimately, it's another engineering problem: better materials for less money, faster and smaller computers, and complex systems that lend themselves to easy maintenance and repair. Only time will tell.
Interesting that you mention this article: Gregg Easterbrook also wrote an article for The Washington Monthly back in 1980, before the Columbia first flew, about various problems, delays, and money issues that NASA was encountering. He also seemed to have a rather negative tone, even back then.
I don't really think they're "heroes" either (in the same way getting trapped in a mine doesn't make you a hero)
I disagree. I believe they are heros in the same way that the world's first sailors were heros. Think about all the sailors that went to sea as explorers, travelers, or even "just" fishermen, never to return. The fact is... nationalism aside, all seven of these astronauts were aware of the dangers of what they did, and they chose to fly anyway. Some may call that stupidity, but I disagree there too; no advancement comes without risk.
I hadn't had to use a floppy disk in months... until I started working in a machine shop with a couple of computer controlled milling machines (in my case, it's the ProtoTRAK MX3). They all run their milling software on top of DOS, and the only ways to get your part's program onto the machine are by parallel port or floppy disk. Sometimes I fear that I'll need to mill a part whose program won't fit on a single disk, but fortunately, that hasn't happened yet:)
Slashdot Mirror
However, when an airplane is hovering there is no airflow over the ailerons, and so they can't be used to correct the counter-torque.
Not quite true here: in the video, you can see that the ailerons are being used to counteract the torque. The large deflection angles, though, do indicate that there is very little airflow over the ailerons.
It is fast approaching the time to reach for the last box on the list.
... the Windows box? We can BSOD them out of office!
Maybe when somebody makes a 1.21 gigawatt power supply, we can use it to transport ourselves back to a time when "more != better."
(...and now someone will link to GNUstep.)
http://www.gnustep.org/
Let's say we do build all new residential areas with pedistrian only walkways. Who'd pick up the trash/recycling? No powered vehicles allowed, remember. How would you get that grand piano to your house? Or that large, stylish sofa? Or pool table? Or the bandsaw that weighs 400 pounds, like is in my garage/workshop? (along with an even heavier milling machine, lathe, two more bandsaws, a freaking heavy as crap spot welder (made in the 30s!), sheet metal brake, welders, and a table saw that weigh at least as much, most weigh more)
Some thoughts here: carfree.com
Yes, I did say the rules apply only if one is desiring AMA insurance coverage. I gave it for informative purposes; I know the project was from Canada. You do make an interesting point with the self-piloted aspect, though.
Oh heck, I'm not so sure now. Apparently there's an auto-pitch trim function (mention about halfway down this page), but not much is said on how it works.
I'm surprised that he managed to do this at all with just one gyro sensing roll rate. For small angles, the aircraft's roll and pitch axes are uncoupled (linear approximation), so I wonder how he sensed the aircraft's pitch angle.
Actually, now that I think about it, I doubt he did. Free-flight gliders that are well-trimmed will just glide around without a problem. Ultimately, we just want the plane to turn, and there are rudder-only radio-controlled aircraft out there (for example). Well-done, I say. Commendable.
Monsanto's very own website has a press release detailing a settlement with the SEC and DOJ for bribing officials in Indonesia and violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Indymedia has further links.
Modded +5 funny, but I really think that such advancements in polymers, like along the lines of plastic solar cells, could really become a big thing.
And if that's "revolt and imprison us," what then, say you?
You may have meant it as a side comment, but really, people tend to forget that there are actually many different standards and ideals of attractiveness out there. If you don't believe me, go browsing around a BBW chat room or group (though that may not be your thing). The GP's preference for thin women may not be PC these days, but it's perfectly valid as well.
The point I'm trying to make is: where is the subset of women who are big and okay with it? They do exist, and there needs to be more of them. The problem is that "fat," to some men, is a woman heavier than 120 pounds. This is dreck. It's true that people in developed countries are getting fatter, but the majority of "average" and even "larger" women are not unhealthy. The stress some of them feel to be thin is not motivated by health, but by culture. This article is telling:
Aussies are fatter than Americans
Look closely at the comments near the bottom of the article:
Sure, but I don't think the U.S. will be lobbing any nuclear warheads anywhere for a long time coming. The political cost, methinks, would be too great. And do we even -have- any non-nuclear ICBMs?
Weaponizing space by actually placing the weapons there doesn't really buy anyone anything.
Incorrect. You are right to say that space is already militarized, as per the title of your post (there are all sorts of DoD satellites up there), but space is not yet weaponized. Here's a direct quote from a paper by the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board entitled, "Report on A Space Roadmap for the 21st Century Aerospace Force" [warning: PDF]:
The last sentence really lays out the promise of next-generation space-based weaponry and surveillance. The new doctrine of transformation is already being implemented, but it's had its share of problems, and I suspect military advisors would say there's a long way to go. Note: I found the article on the Space Roadmap from a collection of articles on the U.S. Air Force website, here. It's an exhaustive list.
From this, I take that the rotational and translational motion must be coupled to produce the complex movement of the CG that she is talking about. If the rotational and translational motion were decoupled, you'd end up with simple tumbling motion like the kind you would find if you dropped a thin strip of paper (high aspect ratio) with the narrow edge facing downward. This would produce the "force due to air [that] is similar to that on an airfoil."
but I got the impression that the phenomenon requires rotational and translational motion to be decoupled.
You mean coupled?
Heh. Yeah, because "sex should be open to all children" is exactly what he said.
Perhaps the answer is closed-loop control. You're right about the simplest solution being to push back the AC of the wing. Though IANAAE (yet... I'm working on my degree), I speculate that with the decreasing cost of necessary hardware, a closed-loop control system would not be incredibly expensive to implement, depending on the bandwidth needed. I'm in no position to speak on how common or expensive the feedback control systems in commercial and military aircraft are, but on the R/C side, Helmut Lelke has already demonstrated an actively stabilized flying wing sailplane for cheap, using a PIC processor. In the article, he covers just the stability issue you speak of. Ya, I understand that aircraft carrying humans should go through much more rigorous design and testing, etc...
But wait a minute... what's to stop a spammer from sending a "legitimate-like" email from an address, and then using the same address to send a flood of spam?
How is this person advocating Linux? The only mention he makes of Linux is where it is most often used (to the best of his knowledge). The point he's trying to make is that in order for XP to work -as advertised-, one should not be able to go up to an XP machine and gain access without some sort of password barrier. If that is impossible (and most of you here are saying that it is), then isn't this a case of faulty advertising?
There is a list of places to file online for free (or a small fee) right from the IRS website.
http://www.irs.gov/app/freeFile/jsp/index.jsp?
I, for one, am trying out Free Tax USA.
I don't know much about the way politics work, but I, for one, think that an opt-in list would be a great idea. Because the true problem is: when money is needed for -everything-, regardless of the nature of that thing which is being acquired, and money is limited (which it is), then increasing spending in one field necessitates decreasing spending in another, often wholly unrelated field.
When money is the issue, the question is not "Moon, or Mars?" The question is not "Shuttle, or new spaceplane?" The question isn't even "International Space Station: fly or scrap?" It becomes, "fly a shuttle... or feed the hungry?" "Space research... or cancer research?" Yes, of course I know there's corruption, and dollars don't go where they're supposed to go, but I'm talking about the principle of the matter. The principle of the matter is that there are more immediate issues here on earth, and those should be tackled first.
I don't know what NASA's future is, given such drastic budget cuts. Perhaps NASA will -ultimately- lose out to smaller start-up companies that are doing independent work to get sattelites, and humans into space (consider John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace). Or maybe ultimately, it's another engineering problem: better materials for less money, faster and smaller computers, and complex systems that lend themselves to easy maintenance and repair. Only time will tell.
Interesting that you mention this article: Gregg Easterbrook also wrote an article for The Washington Monthly back in 1980, before the Columbia first flew, about various problems, delays, and money issues that NASA was encountering. He also seemed to have a rather negative tone, even back then.
I don't really think they're "heroes" either (in the same way getting trapped in a mine doesn't make you a hero)
I disagree. I believe they are heros in the same way that the world's first sailors were heros. Think about all the sailors that went to sea as explorers, travelers, or even "just" fishermen, never to return. The fact is... nationalism aside, all seven of these astronauts were aware of the dangers of what they did, and they chose to fly anyway. Some may call that stupidity, but I disagree there too; no advancement comes without risk.
I hadn't had to use a floppy disk in months... until I started working in a machine shop with a couple of computer controlled milling machines (in my case, it's the ProtoTRAK MX3). They all run their milling software on top of DOS, and the only ways to get your part's program onto the machine are by parallel port or floppy disk. Sometimes I fear that I'll need to mill a part whose program won't fit on a single disk, but fortunately, that hasn't happened yet :)