The last time I served jury duty, my job alone was enough to get me thrown off.
The case being considered was an automobile accident (with injuries), where the driver of the car was claiming that part of the steering/suspension had suddenly failed, causing his car to swerve out of control and hit the other car. There was planned to be a lot of expert testimony involving forensic engineers, metallurgists, etc. hired by the defense to back up the claim.
3 of us were thrown out by the prosecuting attorney during jury selection for having engineering or mechanical backgrounds. One machinist, one auto mechanic, and myself (electronics design). Apparently, if you know enough to possibly UNDERSTAND what the hired experts are trying to say, you have no place on the jury....
In the US, the execution techniques usually used would leave the organs unsuitable for re-use. They would either be saturated with toxins (lethal injection) or cooked (electric chair).
In China, the usual method of execution is a bullet into the back of the head.
The LoJack system only starts transmitting when the cops tell it to (perhaps whether or not the car has actually been reported stolen?).
A system that the property owner can activate independently of the cops just makes work for the police, without the possibility of being able to be used by the cops to track you without your knowledge or consent.
He appears to be using a pneumatic cylinder which is actuated by a small charge of black powder, rather than compressed air.
Black powder is very commonly used in high power rocketry for the deployment of recovery systems. The black powder is set off by means of an electric match or similar electric igniter, fired by the altimeter or flight computer.
The typical HPR hobby rocket would contain 2 independent charges, one which is fired at apogee, and another to deploy the main chute at a lower altitude.
At least if you make the mistake of being little people, that is Serious Felony For Real territory. Firing would be step one, followed by prosecution and hard time.
Which should then be followed by financial compensation and punitive damages awarded to everyone who was wrongly convicted as a result of this episode.
A mistake would have been using the wrong calibration procedure or something. Deliberately NOT PERFORMING the required calibration and falsifying the report forms is not a "mistake", it is outright FRAUD, and the pig or pigs responsible need to be held responsible.
Of course, that ain't gonna happen here in the United Police States of Amerika...
Watch the video. He clearly refers to a hybrid motor.
He shows a cross-sectioned motor after it was burned, talking about the installation of the nitrous injector at the forward end, and showing the eroded remains of the phenolic inside the chamber.
He was using a somewhat unusual design, with the forward bulkhead/closure, fuel grain, and exhaust nozzle all being parts of one large assembly.
Flights like this are only allowed in areas where you have many miles of clear space for recovery.
How far the rocket drifts depends primarily on winds, which vary in speed/direction at different altitudes. There are various simulation packages (like RockSim or OpenRocket) that allow you to run flight simulations and generate landing predictions based on prevailing wind conditions, parachute size, etc.
The most important technique for reducing the recovery distance is multi-stage recovery, where the large main parachute isn't deployed until a very low altitude, specifically to reduce the distance the rocket will be carried by wind. A typical system might simply break the rocket into 2 tethered pieces at apogee (causing it to tumble or flat spin down rather than becoming a ballistic lawn dart), then pop out the main chute at 1500 feet or so. Control of the recovery system deployment is typically done with a combination of barometric pressure sensors and accelerometers, usually contained within a commercially available altimeter module, which records peak altitude and other flight data. The one I use on most of my larger rockets is here:
High power rockets like this are fin stabilized. The initial guidance is provided by the launch rod or rail, which keeps the rocket going straight up until it gains enough velocity that the fins provide sufficient aerodynamic correcting force. Exactly the same as the little Estes model rockets, just bigger.
The lack of spin is an indication that he got all the fins well aligned with the thrust axis of the rocket. Not surprising since he laid out the attachments using proper tools in a well-equipped machine shop.
It is subject to the terms of Part 95 of the FCC rules. You don't need an individual operator or station license (as you do for amateur radio), but there ARE legal limitations on what you can do over a CB.
One of the limitations is exactly what types of signals can be emitted over the CB channels. You are limited to AM or SSB voice. Digital data packets (such as from an APRS system) are NOT permitted.
The "EPA asbestos ban caused Challenger!" story is every bit as much BS as the "CFC-free foam caused Columbia!" story. The material used on Challenger still contained asbestos, just as the failed foam on Columbia's fuel tank was made with CFCs. Read James Oberg's explamation here:
Myth #5: Environmental ban led to weaker sealant A favorite of the Internet, this myth states that a major factor in the disaster was that NASA had been ordered by regulatory agencies to abandon a working pressure sealant because it contained too much asbestos, and use a weaker replacement. But the replacement of the seal was unrelated to the disaster â" and occurred prior to any environmental ban.
Even the original putty had persistent sealing problems, and after it was replaced by another putty that also contained asbestos, the higher level of breaches was connected not to the putty itself, but to a new test procedure being used. âoeWe discovered that it was this leak check which was a likely cause of the dangerous bubbles in the putty that I had heard about," wrote physicist Richard Feynman, a member of the Challenger investigation board.
And the bubble effect was unconnected with the actual seal violation that would ultimately doom Challenger and its crew. The cause was an inadequate low-temperature performance of the O-ring seal itself, which had not been replaced.
The sad part is that the OP may not have gotten this crap from Limbaugh. Since Rush started promoting this meme on his show, it has truly taken on a life of its own, and it shows up CONSTANTLY in almost any discussion of the Columbia accident. I have posted the same corrective info in several threads here on/., but it still seems to pop up, even among a group of supposedly technically astute people who should know better.
A similar (and also false) story circulated after the Challenger accident, putting the blame for the SRB joint failure on the supposed removal of asbestos from the sealing putty between the booster sections. The right-wing spin machine has been at this crap for a long time, folks....
Slashdot Mirror
The last time I served jury duty, my job alone was enough to get me thrown off.
The case being considered was an automobile accident (with injuries), where the driver of the car was claiming that part of the steering/suspension had suddenly failed, causing his car to swerve out of control and hit the other car. There was planned to be a lot of expert testimony involving forensic engineers, metallurgists, etc. hired by the defense to back up the claim.
3 of us were thrown out by the prosecuting attorney during jury selection for having engineering or mechanical backgrounds. One machinist, one auto mechanic, and myself (electronics design). Apparently, if you know enough to possibly UNDERSTAND what the hired experts are trying to say, you have no place on the jury....
Then you run into the issue of "do no harm" and the Hippocratic oath. You effectively make the doctor harvesting the organs the executioner.
In the US, the execution techniques usually used would leave the organs unsuitable for re-use. They would either be saturated with toxins (lethal injection) or cooked (electric chair).
In China, the usual method of execution is a bullet into the back of the head.
But everything's better with a bag of weed!
http://video.adultswim.com/family-guy/bag-of-weed.html
I think the app in question reports physical location based on internal GPS, rather than just an IP address.
unlike the "Find my iPad" type apps.
The LoJack system only starts transmitting when the cops tell it to (perhaps whether or not the car has actually been reported stolen?).
A system that the property owner can activate independently of the cops just makes work for the police, without the possibility of being able to be used by the cops to track you without your knowledge or consent.
http://ddeville.com/derek/Qu8k.html
He appears to be using a pneumatic cylinder which is actuated by a small charge of black powder, rather than compressed air.
Black powder is very commonly used in high power rocketry for the deployment of recovery systems. The black powder is set off by means of an electric match or similar electric igniter, fired by the altimeter or flight computer.
The typical HPR hobby rocket would contain 2 independent charges, one which is fired at apogee, and another to deploy the main chute at a lower altitude.
I once bought a new VCR (Mitsubishi, IIRC) that came with a videotape explaining how to hook it up to your TV.
...in that you have that much longer to think about what's coming.
At least if you make the mistake of being little people, that is Serious Felony For Real territory. Firing would be step one, followed by prosecution and hard time.
Which should then be followed by financial compensation and punitive damages awarded to everyone who was wrongly convicted as a result of this episode.
A mistake would have been using the wrong calibration procedure or something. Deliberately NOT PERFORMING the required calibration and falsifying the report forms is not a "mistake", it is outright FRAUD, and the pig or pigs responsible need to be held responsible.
Of course, that ain't gonna happen here in the United Police States of Amerika...
Watch the video. He clearly refers to a hybrid motor.
He shows a cross-sectioned motor after it was burned, talking about the installation of the nitrous injector at the forward end, and showing the eroded remains of the phenolic inside the chamber.
He was using a somewhat unusual design, with the forward bulkhead/closure, fuel grain, and exhaust nozzle all being parts of one large assembly.
Flights like this are only allowed in areas where you have many miles of clear space for recovery.
How far the rocket drifts depends primarily on winds, which vary in speed/direction at different altitudes. There are various simulation packages (like RockSim or OpenRocket) that allow you to run flight simulations and generate landing predictions based on prevailing wind conditions, parachute size, etc.
The most important technique for reducing the recovery distance is multi-stage recovery, where the large main parachute isn't deployed until a very low altitude, specifically to reduce the distance the rocket will be carried by wind. A typical system might simply break the rocket into 2 tethered pieces at apogee (causing it to tumble or flat spin down rather than becoming a ballistic lawn dart), then pop out the main chute at 1500 feet or so. Control of the recovery system deployment is typically done with a combination of barometric pressure sensors and accelerometers, usually contained within a commercially available altimeter module, which records peak altitude and other flight data. The one I use on most of my larger rockets is here:
http://www.marsa4.com/
, but there are several manufacturers of similar devices serving this market.
High power rockets like this are fin stabilized. The initial guidance is provided by the launch rod or rail, which keeps the rocket going straight up until it gains enough velocity that the fins provide sufficient aerodynamic correcting force. Exactly the same as the little Estes model rockets, just bigger.
The lack of spin is an indication that he got all the fins well aligned with the thrust axis of the rocket. Not surprising since he laid out the attachments using proper tools in a well-equipped machine shop.
His motor was a hybrid, using liquid nitrous oxide as an oxidizer and cast phenolic as a fuel grain.
The HCl and Al2O3 would be found in the exhaust of a more conventional ammonium perchlorate composite motor, not a hybrid.
A regular series from the old days of Popular Electronics magazine. Some of them are available online at:
http://www.copperwood.com/carlandjerry.htm
Unless the person is cremated, I seriously doubt it...
http://static.hypervocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Santorum-Cumming-Rally-Obama.jpg
He sure does, but he is also an expert at coming from behind, right?
It is subject to the terms of Part 95 of the FCC rules. You don't need an individual operator or station license (as you do for amateur radio), but there ARE legal limitations on what you can do over a CB.
One of the limitations is exactly what types of signals can be emitted over the CB channels. You are limited to AM or SSB voice. Digital data packets (such as from an APRS system) are NOT permitted.
What's next, snorting No-Doz?
If a quick sniff won't tell you the difference between grass and oregano, you are probably way too high already....
Kinda grabs you by the boo-boo, don't it?
The "EPA asbestos ban caused Challenger!" story is every bit as much BS as the "CFC-free foam caused Columbia!" story. The material used on Challenger still contained asbestos, just as the failed foam on Columbia's fuel tank was made with CFCs. Read James Oberg's explamation here:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11031097/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/myths-about-challenger-shuttle-disaster
Myth #5: Environmental ban led to weaker sealant
A favorite of the Internet, this myth states that a major factor in the disaster was that NASA had been ordered by regulatory agencies to abandon a working pressure sealant because it contained too much asbestos, and use a weaker replacement. But the replacement of the seal was unrelated to the disaster â" and occurred prior to any environmental ban.
Even the original putty had persistent sealing problems, and after it was replaced by another putty that also contained asbestos, the higher level of breaches was connected not to the putty itself, but to a new test procedure being used. âoeWe discovered that it was this leak check which was a likely cause of the dangerous bubbles in the putty that I had heard about," wrote physicist Richard Feynman, a member of the Challenger investigation board.
And the bubble effect was unconnected with the actual seal violation that would ultimately doom Challenger and its crew. The cause was an inadequate low-temperature performance of the O-ring seal itself, which had not been replaced.
The sad part is that the OP may not have gotten this crap from Limbaugh. Since Rush started promoting this meme on his show, it has truly taken on a life of its own, and it shows up CONSTANTLY in almost any discussion of the Columbia accident. I have posted the same corrective info in several threads here on /., but it still seems to pop up, even among a group of supposedly technically astute people who should know better.
A similar (and also false) story circulated after the Challenger accident, putting the blame for the SRB joint failure on the supposed removal of asbestos from the sealing putty between the booster sections. The right-wing spin machine has been at this crap for a long time, folks....