Pantaz

Here's a good starting point: http://www.101science.com/Radio.htm#cap

More detailed: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_13/index.html

Well,disagreeing...

So, apparently, you aren't here to learn, you simply want agreement with your idea.

Show your math, then we can talk. Until then, I'm done here.

Let's take an another example to understand how my engine basically works. ...

Still won't work. You are assuming far too much. Perhaps if you read the section, "The Elastic/Inelastic Dilemma" on http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/physgal.htm then you might start understanding where your design is lacking.

... It still doesn't satisfied some folks even after 50 years. ...

Some people aren't satisfied that the Earth orbits the Sun. Heck, some people aren't even satisfied that the Earth is round! Dissatisfaction doesn't alter the facts.

Physics trumps Belief every time.

Recent trends in... what?

"Mechanical project" can be just about anything. Folding a piece of paper can be considered a "mechanical project". Building an autonomous robot to fold a piece of paper is also a "mechanical project".

Rather than relying on salespeople, I would look at the winch manufacturer's published specifications. You might also contact their technical/engineering departments.

Also, if you will be using this in a commercial setting (i.e., on a job site) then OSHA (in the U.S.) regulations might be a problem. Finally, if this involves overhead lifting, there are even more considerations.

I just visited the Warn Winch site and found this:

... "Lifting, on the other hand, requires lifting dead weight into the air vertically. Therefore, a lifting/pulling product like PullzAll has some unique design features, such as a load limiter, and it does not utilize a freespool clutch." ...

And, they have a selection of industrial wire-rope hoists that should meet your requirements:

http://www.warn.com/industrial/winches/industrial_hoists_all.shtml

I just got done watching "Loose Change 9-11" on NetFlix. This documentary covers a lot of the stuff talked about in this thread. Not sure I completely agree with everything, but it was an interesting view on the events of 9-11. Perhaps you guys should watch it.

I prefer this version.

A great resource for fact-checking "Loose Change" is, 9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide

Have you looked at any of the web sites dedicated to DIY wind turbines? I can remember seeing at least a couple with write-ups on how they tested different blade designs & efficiency.

The site you posted, http://www.surveyor.com/SRV_info.html, links to a user forum. That's where I would start.

... A simple explanation for the molten metal is that it is steel melted with thermate. ...

Please present any evidence of:

A) Molten steel

B) Thermite or thermate.

Note: YouTube is not acceptable an acceptable reference.

You need to watch a program called: loose change. ...

Viewer's Guide to 9-11 Loose Change

http://www.loosechangeguide.com

... The NIST explanation does not seem plausible to me...

Long before the NIST report, MIT conducted a panel discussion with civil and structural engineers:

"One month after the attack on the World Trade Center, M.I.T. structural engineers offer their take on how and why the towers came down."

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

Not to be dismissive, but relevant information is available all over the internet and quite possibly in your school's library.

Also, "detailed advice" is asking for a lot on a forum.

What's your budget? Based on your brief description, it will not be cheap.

When is the deadline? A project of this magnitude can easily take the better part of a year just for planning. Do you already have a team assembled?

Thank you for the many reply. To be more specific in need to make "Brine" for drilling. Most Brine is made by pumping ordinary water deep into the earth into a specific salt formation and then pumping it to the surface. the salt water is more dense and thus also it is heavier. I am told that it can weigh as much as 7 to 10 lbs. Seems quite heavy for salt water???? The concept of using Magnesium is new to me?? I believe it would some how change the chemical structure of water?? Ok guys Dumb this one up for me!!!!I'm not a chemist and need to keep it simple....

Well, this has been one heck of a miscommunication, eh?

Take a quick look at the Wiki page for "Heavy Water" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water

Numerous pages on forming PVC -- http://www.google.com/search?q=heat+forming+pvc+pipe

Just off the top of my head, one double-acting cylinder operating a crankshaft would get the job done. Timing might be a little tricky -- pneumatics don't exactly react instantaneously.

... Both

Well, I can only do one of them "first" ;-)

For 9-11 subjects, I tend to use the JREF forums as my initial source. They do not delete posts or threads. This means that information or references found there can always be found there -- unlike many other internet forums. Offensive or threatening language may be edited out, but at the worst, posts or whole threads are simply moved to the "Abandon All Hope" sub-forum. (Only visible to registered members.)

Several lengthy discussions concerning the paper have taken place on the JREF forums. There were actually two submissions accepted by Bentham. The first was just a letter to the Open Civil Engineering Journal, titled, "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction". (Prior to publication, Jones blogged, "Recently had a technical paper accepted for publication following peer-review"). After publication of this first article, when the identity of the publisher was revealed, it quickly became clear that the whole "Bentham Open Access" system was/is highly questionable. (Considerable discussion of the letter's content follow in that thread.)

On to the paper in question.

Bentham Open Access

1. First of all, Bentham's Open Chemical Physics Journal is a pay-to-publish "vanity" journal -- as are most (if not all) of their 230+ open access journals. At the time of publication, their fees ranged from $600 to $900 per article. Rebuttals are charged the same fees.
    
   
2. The paper was never presented to the journal's editor in chief, Marie-Paule Pileni. When made aware of this, she resigned, as reported by the Danish news service Videnskab.dk (Translation from here):
    
   
   "Professor Marie-Paule Pileni first heard about the article when videnskab.dk wrote to her to ask for her professional assessment of the article’s content."
   
   
    
   
   
   "“They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France."
   
   
    
   
   
   “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.”

   
    
   

3. One post-publication peer review begins, "There is much wrong with this article. It would not have passed my expert peer review in its published state."
   It is worthwhile noting that the author, Denis G. Rancourt, if not directly involved with, is sympathetic to the "Truth Movement".
    
   
4. Bentham's peer review was found to be questionable in another instance: "OA publisher accepts fake paper", followed by, "Editors quit after fake paper flap".
    
   
5. More opinions and concerns about Bentham's integrity from many academics are summarized here.
   

Next...

Errors in Methodology and Conclusions

I'll simply point you to work done by properly qualified people:

1. "Active Thermitic Material" claimed in Ground Zero dust may not be thermitic at all (by Enrico Manieri)
   Abstract: A recent paper claiming "active thermitic material" in dust collected in the vicinity of the Twin Towers after their collapse is found to have shortcomings in its methodology.
   The paper also fails to explore adequately alternative, non-thermitic explanations for its findings.
   
   • Specifically, the paper's use of methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) to demonstrate the presence of elemental aluminum is known to yield inconsistent results because MEK could react with aluminum;
     
   • alleged elemental aluminum nanoparticles are claimed to remain unreacted after 55 hours of MEK bath, but also contradictorily to react violently already at 430°C;
     
   • photographic and spectral comparisons between commercial thermite and spheroidal particles in Ground Zero dust omit any other comparison with possible alternative sources of such findings;
     
   • DSC analysis was conducted in air, but should have been conducted in an inert gas environment in order to obtain reliable results for thermite, which does not require an external oxidizer.
     

The paper also does not consider the chemical composition of the corrosion-proofing paints and of the vermiculite used as thermal insulation and soundproofing at the World Trade Center and extensively documented by NIST.

These products contain exactly the same elements and exhibit the same structural characteristics as the allegedly thermitic material found by the paper's researchers in their samples.

The researchers therefore appear to have been somewhat hasty in reaching their conclusions.

[*] The results of their DSC analysis is touted by the author and supporters as significant, yet the methodology is one of the more glaring errors.

(From page 10) The DSC tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per minute up to a temperature of 700 °C. During heating, the samples were contained in alumina pans and air was allowed to flow at 55 milliliters per minute during the heating.

I can't find words to express it better than what was said here: "These guys ran the DSC in a flow of air with more than enough to burn anything burnable. Fires always show a nice exotherm."

And here: "... I just cannot believe that anyone would be so stupid as to place a material compromising an iron oxide layer attached to a red layer containing aluminosilicates and Fe2O3 with an unknown Carbon based material, into a DSC, combust it and then claim a thermite reaction has taken place."

[*] Note: While the following is not in typical peer review style, the author, "Sunstealer", is a forensic metallurgist. These are just a few of his more technical postings that review the "thermite paper".

• "Proof Red Layer is NOT thermite - Kaolinite Found" (SEM and EDS analysis)
  
• "... cross comparisons of each of the chips examined in the paper."
  
• "... some analysis on the results specifically with regard to the aluminium."
  
• "General Characterisation (Visual Characterisation, Gray Layer and Red Layer Analysis)."
  

He recently found another discrepancy -- "... the chip soaked in MEK in the Harrit et al paper was WTC primer paint".

If you can ignore the typical internet forum noise, the following threads contain numerous posts using solid science and verifiable resources that refute the paper again and again.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

Citing that pathetic "paper" on Bentham -- Seriously? Which would you like first, the dismantling of their "peer review", or the list of errors in the "paper"?

Reported as spam -- He's been trying to promote this idea all over the place...

http://www.google.com/search?q=Trisection+of+angles-similarly

If you would tell us what you are trying to accomplish, you will get more specific answers.

Then it is incorrect to say that R1 and R2 are in series?

Yes.

It's helpful to think of them as propellers. The basic principles are very similar. With that in mind, note that the cross-section of a propeller blade is an airfoil -- a wing, and since the air speed over the blade increases as you move farther toward the tip, the chord (distance from leading edge to trailing edge) and angle of attack gradually decreases (that's the twist you see along the length of a propeller blade) to distribute loading evenly over its length.

The "Blade Design" section of Wikipedia's wind turbine design page provides a good overview of why modern blades look the way they do. The wind turbine aerodynamics page goes into much more detail.

Also, NASA's airfoil simulator may help you visualize changes in drag and lift with different shapes (including a simple flat-plate) and angles.

How can governments fix this problem?

Why would/should any government agency be involved in the love lives of individuals?

It's horrible to see so many people in their mid-thirties and still single.

Why do you feel this way?

Write a thorough report of the current state of the books -- including plenty of before-and-after photographs from different angles -- and your steps (and time spent) to "remedy" the situation, including citations of any regulations. I would preface the report with a heart-felt (but very professional) thank you to the safety manager for his help in identifying such a hazard. Print hard-copies and present them to everybody remotely connected to the safety department.

One thousandth per foot, per inch, or what?

A basic surface milling cutter can meet the tolerance, but you say "polish" -- what surface finish do you require?

Much depends on the specifics, but any reasonably competent machine shop can hold tolerances within 0.001".

Got me wondering about how many calories we burn at rest. Found a chart of basic daily activities here.

Looked a little deeper and came across a nice, simple article on calories and metabolism -- http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/metabolism/WT00006

Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) calculator