|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#521
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:53:56 -0500, "Ami Silberman"
wrote: That's odd. Because I seem to recall seeing a bat fly _through_ a chain link fence. Well, there are different sizes of bats... ....When we should *really* be concerned is if Paul suddenly reports that he had a bat fly through a window in his study while he's contemplating the deaths of his parents. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#522
|
|||
|
|||
Derek Lyons wrote:
[...] That's *not* to say the Shuttle is the is the best way to do things, or that it's advantages outweigh the disadvantages. But to pretend the Shuttle has no advantages is nothing but handwaving FUD. Well said, Derek. /dps -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
#523
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:47:47 -0500, Terrell Miller
wrote: Derek Lyons wrote: The Shuttle can carry it's destination with itself, where the CSM has to have one provided. erm...Derek, please take a moment and realize exactly what you just said... Don't poke sticks at the Zen master, please. Also, as examples to support Derek's meaning: various Spacehab configs, versus 1 Skylab. However, to balance the savings on rendezvous equipment, fairings, etc: the shuttle payload bay has a weight penalty in terms of longitudinal reinforcements, door opening hardware, etc. Have to see which way the scales tip on this issue. /dps -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
#524
|
|||
|
|||
Ami Silberman wrote: I saw a bat fly into a chain link fence once. I'm still trying to figure that one out. That's odd. Because I seem to recall seeing a bat fly _through_ a chain link fence. Well, there are different sizes of bats... Or some very big links on the fence. The bat that I saw hit the fence bounced off, fell to the ground, and sat there looking confused for a few seconds before flying off- it was pretty funny to watch. Pat |
#525
|
|||
|
|||
OM wrote: ...When we should *really* be concerned is if Paul suddenly reports that he had a bat fly through a window in his study while he's contemplating the deaths of his parents. Yeah, normally it's the ball, not the bat, that comes through the window. Pat (running) :-) |
#526
|
|||
|
|||
Derek Lyons wrote:
Another fellow who did his PhD in electromagnetics at UBC almost thirty years ago went on to work as a defence scientist. He made quite a name for himself by taking techniques used to predict scattering and diffraction of EM waves and applying them to underwater sonar. Again, it was the similarity in wavelength that made this work. The problem is this, active sonars don't operate in the ultrasonic range. Not the sub-hunting ones anyways. But then *I* know this from experience. Derek, I'm sure you do. But where do I state that the underwater sonar operated in the ultrasonic range? Oh, I didn't state that. You assumed it. Then you offered a correction to something that I didn't write. You certainly know how to make an impression. -- Dave Michelson |
#527
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Michelson wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote: Another fellow who did his PhD in electromagnetics at UBC almost thirty years ago went on to work as a defence scientist. He made quite a name for himself by taking techniques used to predict scattering and diffraction of EM waves and applying them to underwater sonar. Again, it was the similarity in wavelength that made this work. The problem is this, active sonars don't operate in the ultrasonic range. Not the sub-hunting ones anyways. But then *I* know this from experience. Derek, I'm sure you do. But where do I state that the underwater sonar operated in the ultrasonic range? Since every message you've written has dealth with ultrasonics.. What else could you possibly mean? Oh, I didn't state that. You assumed it. Then you offered a correction to something that I didn't write. No, I've offered corrections to what you have written several times. You certainly know how to make an impression. Ah, once again you resort to flame and insult to divert attention away from your failures. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#528
|
|||
|
|||
Derek Lyons wrote:
I'm sure you do. But where do I state that the underwater sonar operated in the ultrasonic range? Since every message you've written has dealth with ultrasonics.. Given that Pat's original question was about cameras with ultrasonic range finders, that shouldn't be too surprising. What else could you possibly mean? I could have meant what I wrote: The EM wave/acoustics analog can often be exploited when the wavelengths are similar and that I have direct knowledge of people who have very successfully done so. Practical EM waves have wavelengths ranging from 1000's of metres to 1/1000 of a metre. That's a fairly broad range. I haven't done any work in underwater acoustics (my expertise includes RCS prediction, modification, and measurement at microwave frequencies) but would hazard a guess that underwater sonar wavelengths likely fall within that broad range. Ah, once again you resort to flame and insult.... In hindsight, I admit that I shouldn't have explicitly paraphrased your earlier dismissive responses to Pat and others when I responded to you. -- Dave Michelson |
#529
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:32:40 GMT, Dave Michelson
wrote: Ah, once again you resort to flame and insult.... In hindsight, I admit that I shouldn't have explicitly paraphrased your earlier dismissive responses to Pat and others when I responded to you. ....Tsk. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#530
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote: No, actually - the bow wave of the boats would push the flaming oil out of the way. And to the sides, where it would still get you if there was a breeze; the passing of the boat would also suck the fire in behind it. These aren't five foot high flames, more like twenty-five foot high flames. And the "Consuming all Oxygen" claim is, shall we say, wildly exaggerated. How would the fire stay lit, after all? It will go out if all the oxygen is expended- unfortunately the upwelling column of rising heated air from the fire will suck in fresh air from around the base of the fire....where the landing craft is, the troops will find themselves surrounded by flames and trying to breathe air heated to several hundred degrees and thick smoke. Consider, if you will, that very early on, techniques for the survival of unprotected (Unless you count a Kapok Life Jacket as protection) survivors of torpedoed oil tankers were developed. Thet's certainly a much worse situation. It might work for a castle moat. But that's a case where you are in burning ship bunker fuel; fairly low grade oil, that you can splash out of the way and that doesn't burn very violently. And your head is close to the water where fresh air can reach it as it's sucked toward the fire- the British system used gasoline, not bunker fuel, and looking at the film of it rising out of the water prior to ignition used hundreds if not thousands of gallons of it. Flame weapons, unless you've got some way to the fuel to stick to the target, are wildly ineffective. Even when the fuel does stick (Napalm, for example) It's really mostly effective against unprotected personnel, The guys crouching down in the landing craft aren't going to be terribly protected. IIRC, the Germans did make a test of flame resistant clothing at sometime during the war, and burnt a lot of troops to death during it. If you weren't expecting it, the physiological effect of suddenly seeing the sea ahead of you go up in flames would have been severe. Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident | Jim Oberg | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 13th 04 04:58 PM |
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident | Jim Oberg | History | 0 | December 13th 04 04:58 PM |
"Hindsight bias" could hide real lessons of Columbia accident report,expert says (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 3rd 03 01:54 AM |
NASA Administrator Accepts Columbia Accident Report | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 3 | August 27th 03 04:48 PM |
Columbia Accident Investigation Board Releases Final Report | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 26th 03 03:30 PM |