Jump to content

mistermack

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1508
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by mistermack

  1. I'm guessing here, obviously, but it looks likely that a real stall is just as dangerous as a fake one. So the electronics in that situation are vital, to take action quicker than a pilot would. Otherwise, you could easily fix as above. Just when a stall is indicated, play a recorded message to the pilots, indicating the proper series of actions for that situation. It can only be time that prevents that from being the solution. The best answer is to have a plane that doesn't want to stall. How do other planes survive without electronic anti-stall? ( I don't know ). My own fix, off the top of my head, is to design a visible air speed indicator that works on physical principles rather than electronic. I would put a carbon fibre bendy rod, like a fishing rod, on the nose, where the pilots can always see it. The bend in the rod would give an unmistakable indication of air speed, and as it's always there, the pilots would know at a glance if the plane was about to stall, or not. After a few hours flying, your mind would match the shape of the rod to the indicated air speed.
  2. There's a big difference though, in the miles and flying hours that fighter jets clock up in their lifetime compared to passenger jets. And the requirements are different. Manoeuvrability isn't a requirement for passengers. But stability and safety is. Fighter jets don't have people walking around not strapped in for one thing. And they have ejector seats and parachutes. They are a bit like formula 1 cars, compared to family saloons. The odd crash doesn't really matter, it's performance that counts. It will be interesting to see what they propose as a fix. They are due to start flying again soon. There's going to be mega-scrutiny this time of what measures have been taken, unlike after the first crash, so it will have to not just be good, but be seen to be good. I still won't be flying in one. When I get on a plane, it's comforting to tell yourself that it's safer than driving etc, when you get up to 300 mph and a thousand feet up. The last thing you want is the thought of diving head first into the ground in your head.
  3. All of that applied before the last crash though. After the first crash, Boeing and the FAA said it's safe, and the pilots continued to fly it till they were all grounded after the second crash. If I was getting a pilot's salary, instead of paying for a ticket, I might be more willing. What's quite disturbing, is that when they tried to shift the blame onto the pilots, it emerged that in the event of the anti-stall forcing the nose of the plane down, the pilots have only four seconds to decide what the problem is, and flick the switches to disable the electrical power to the trim on the tail. After that point, the force is so great on the trim, that the manual override can't be worked by hand. Four seconds to include thinking time, diagnosing the problem and acting on it. It's just not reasonable. It obviously can be done, and has been done. But it's not a great margin for error.
  4. I'm not here to knock Boeing. They have achieved fabulous stuff in the past. Great planes, breaking new ground, setting records. But there is no way I'm ever going to take off in a 737 Max. From what I can glean from the two crashes that grounded the fleet, the design is cobble up, and needs everything to be right, in order to keep flying. I want a plane that nearly flies itself, not one that needs special software, and top quality piloting just to keep it from crashing. I believe that the whole problem is due to moving the engines forward, and enlarging the intakes, in an effort to compete with the equivalent Airbus A320. This apparently affects the handling so much, that a special bit of software had to be installed, to prevent stalling. The software is triggered by a sensor, and when it goes into action, it overrides the pilot, and pushes the nose of the plane down. If the sensor fails, down you go, and that's what happened in the two crashes. And, I believe, it happened in other cases, where the pilots were able to cope with it and a crash was averted. I'm usually fairly trusting of technology. In cases like this, if a fix could be demonstrated to be foolproof, I would normally have no qualms about flying in the plane. But the way that this scandal has developed has created a picture of today's Boeing having a fundamentally flawed culture, where big money is more important than safety. This was a known problem, very well understood by the company, but the fundamental fix, to redesign the plane, would cost absolute megabucks. The fix that they came up with might have worked, with a thorough foolproof anti-stall system, but that cost too much as well. And it could even have worked if they had TOLD the pilots of the problem, and retrained them on how to fly through the problem. But that was too much money as well, (and might have looked bad, if it had leaked out). So they crossed their fingers and hoped. And even after the two crashes, they STILL didn't want to do anything, till they were forced to. So no, no bargain price would get me up in a 737 Max, when they start flying again. And I have a feeling that a lot of people will be saying the same when they book.
  5. Not necessarily. Nitrogen can be a liquid, and so can Copper. It depends on temperature and pressure. So what you are really asking, is why they have different boiling and melting points. Can't help you on that. Something to do with the intermolecular forces.
  6. The wikipedia page for Bacillus Subtilis is actually very misleading. But down the page, it does show a gram stained picture, with the purple colour similar to your pictures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_subtilis
  7. Damn it, I got that the wrong way around, sorry. The purple colour is gram positive. So this looks gram positive, not negative. The prominent rod shapes are definitely purple.
  8. That's all true, but deserts can be farmed very profitably if the water is available. Israel is one of the world leaders, they have huge areas of desert growing stuff like Jojoba. If you have a water supply that isn't going to run out, you can build up a soil over the years, growing crops initially that are suited to more sparse conditions. Some crops, like Clover, fix nitrogen from the air in their roots, and improve the soil as they grow. There's loads of stuff on youtube about growing crops on desert soils. Edit : More directly relevant to the OP, this youtube video shows Israelis extracting dew from the air, using plastic around the roots of each plant. It starts at 3:10
  9. Shades of both. Green is the more dominant, but there are hints of red about.
  10. One thing I dreamed up, a few years ago, was a possible way to green some of the world's deserts. I don't know if it would work, it would take some serious political will to embark on. The idea is that you start with a desert or semi desert close to the coast. It has to have a history of regular onshore winds. What you do is to install some serious seawater pumps, a few hundred metres from the shore. When there is any significant onshore wind, you pump seawater upwards, in an extremely fine spray, so that the water evaporates, and the salt falls back into the ocean. The humid air travels inland, where it is forced upwards, forming clouds and giving rain. The combination of clouds and rain transform the barren land into rich agricultural land, taxes on which pays for the pumping operation. In time you might even get rivers to flow, enabling secondary irrigation using the same water. If the economics don't add up now, they might in the future, if there is cheap electricity from fusion reactors. Somewhere like the Nullarbor Plain in Australia could be transformed into a real bread basket, with regular rainfall. And all you need is an onshore wind, and the money to operate the pumps.
  11. I'm afraid it's you that's being dense. I was clearly pointing out how long we have been evolving mechanisms of coping with the cold. And I clearly referenced the out of Africa figure of 75,000 years. Dogs evolved from wolves, and they have been coping with colder temperatures for millions of years, in contrast to humans. It's simple stuff, all there in my post. You seem to have lost track of what the thread is about.
  12. William Lane Craig and others balance their whole argument for the existence of God on the argument that some things just exist, outside of time and space, and Maths is the example they use of such a class of "thing". I view maths as a property of stuff, not something that exists on it's own. You can have 3 oranges, but there is no such thing as "3". I can't think of any other thing that exists outside of time and space, Craig gives the impression that there is a whole class of "things" that exist necessarily, but maths is the only one I've heard him actually mention. Well, maths and god. But God is the thing he's trying to prove exists, so that doesn't count.
  13. The track was used as backing for an American Express commercial.
  14. I don't know if this is relevant, but I'm sure I just heard a remote voice say "I've really got them going, this is great trolling!"
  15. Well, that's your best bet. Why waste your time here? If you can really do it, it should be easy to make money, from sceptical and non sceptical alike. So it's not just you who can do it then? It should be easy to set up an impressive show, if you have someone else who can do it as well.
  16. It does but you didn't get it. You said "freedom to act according to your own wishes and beliefs" That is making the erroneous assumption that your wishes and beliefs ARE your own. I've shown that they didn't just rub off from your environment, they were instilled into you, mostly in a deliberate fashion, as in religion, politics and advertising. We are all generally tolerant of homosexual people now in this country. Which is quite right, I'm glad it's that way. But it didn't happen without deliberate indoctrination. Sixty years ago, it was hugely different. We've had sixty years of drip drip indoctrination, to get to where we are now. Sixty years ago, the attitude was the opposite, because the indoctrination we had up to then been the other way around. The official message was "gay bad" . A bit like some of the more backward countries today. We've switched the direction of the indoctrination, and switched the overall public attitude. It's taken a while, but it works.
  17. When your wishes and beliefs are designed for you, and fed to you in drip drip fashion throughout your life, then that is taking away your freedom. Of course, you have the theoretical freedom to change your beliefs. But is that real? I can't change what I believe. I believe America exists. No matter how hard I try, sitting here and really trying, I can't believe otherwise. You can't choose your wishes, or your beliefs. But you can choose what your children will grow up wishing and believing. The facts speak for themselves. Your idea seems to be that if it happens gradually, it's not happening at all. The results prove you wrong, in their billions. About six billion people on the planet have adopted the religion of their parents. It's not a coincidence. It's more than just the environment rubbing off on them. If you look at which religions are growing, and which are shrinking, the trends follow the intensity of indoctrination. Islam has a very high intensity indoctrination culture, and it's doing well. Christianity in the UK is generally quite laid back, and it's shrinking fast. The difference is in the level of indoctrination. Yes, we all ARE. I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, just that it's there. As far as the media goes, why do you think people pay so much to control the news media? It's rarely a money-spinner. Why do governments want control of the news media? Because they know that people are easily told what to think and what to want, if you can get good control of the media. Why do the TV stations in the UK run regular stories, about some minor royal supporting this or that charity? It's not news, but they make it so. The message is, "Royal Family Good" and it's tirelessly repeated. They will run unfavourable stories occasionally, but only because if they didn't, it would give the game away. Why do commercials constantly show mixed-race couples? When mixed race couples are such a low proportion of the total? Same reason, to get the message over, "integration normal, integration good". I don't mind that one, I'm not saying it's all bad, just that it is subtle indoctrination. Hell, if it didn't work, we wouldn't have such a gigantic advertising industry. We are amazingly easy to manipulate, for creatures of "free will".
  18. In the end, free will will always be a grey area, of judgement and definition. And it affects almost everyone in some way or other. Two billion Christians would almost certainly tell you that they follow their religion through their own free choice. And another billion Hindus would say the same. And a billion Muslims would probably be quite sure that they remain Muslim through their own free will. But it's perfectly obvious that that choice was made for them by their parents, who also had the same experience. Lots of other things are being decided for us, by a constant drip drip of indoctrination by the media. You can argue, like the two billion Christians, that they are "free" to choose something else at any time. But an indoctrinated mind is not "free". It's been deliberately shaped to think certain things.
  19. I have an engineer friend who used to work in Saudi Arabia. He says that at certain times over there, condensation would be streaming off the metal roofs of the modern industrial buildings and running down the downpipes from the gutters as if it was raining. I doubt if it would last for long though. The condensation would be bound to warm the metal up past the dew point very rapidly. You would need a combination of very clear skies, and high humidity, to maximise the yield. I'm sure it's been tried over there. If he noticed it, lots of other people would too. I prefer the transpiration bag idea. So long as there are some non-poisonous bushes within range, you can get a lot of water using a few plastic bags, and the local bushes. They suck up the water from below, and deliver it at no cost, other than the effort of collecting it and resetting the bag.
  20. So, in your view, the evolution of dogs started with domestication? I think you'll find that it goes back millions of years before that. And Strange contrasting Africans with Inuit is ludicrous. The real contrast is between the Inuit, sleeping inside an efficient shelter, lying on a bed of animal pelts, covered in a thick layer of animal pelts, and his husky, sleeping outside in minus thirty, wearing nothing.
  21. I like this. American Express eventually got something right.
  22. I can't add any hard facts, I've heard plenty of anecdotes, but they don't constitute hard evidence. One thing to remember though, is that humans are not evolved for cold climates. We evolved fairly close to the equator, and only spread around the globe after we learned to keep warm artificially with clothing etc. Modern humans probably made it out of Africa about 75,000 years ago give or take 25,000. And they were already adept at making clothing and shelter and fires. We simply haven't got the long period of evolution of surviving chills that our pet dogs have, for example. We are evolved for coping with a quick chill of a downpour, followed by steamy heat. Not prolonged cold. When we get cold, our body automatically begins shutting down non-essential parts. We let the temperature of our extremities drop, and keep the heat as deep inside as possible, to lose heat at a slower rate, and protect the vital organs. It could be that the immune system gets less priority for resources, when you get chilled, in order to direct the available energy towards keeping your vitals warm. By devising warm clothing, and effective shelter, we prevented the evolution of greater cold tolerance. Instead of dying, we've been adapting using artifice, and that's not good for evolution.
  23. It's worth remembering that our ancestors spent a lot of time in trees, and living like that, it's vital to be ready for the demands placed on your body when using branches for support. One slip could mean your eventual death. So we evolved to anticipate without thinking what the next demand will be. How much give will be in that branch. Will it bend to breaking point. Will my hands fit round it, or am I likely to slip if it's mossy or wet? We do similar things today at a much reduced level, without thinking, and it still pays off by making life easier.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.