Carborendum

Members
  • Posts

    4696
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    200

Everything posted by Carborendum

  1. Well, Taveler. No matter what we disagree on, I still find it a pleasure to have known you.
  2. I can't tell when you're joking or not. But I didn't see any wire that you're talking about other than the throttle controls and the netting. Don't be my childhood friend who told me about the North Koreans coming down over the mountains.
  3. Now that we've talked this thing to death. The flying cars... wow... they're not here yet.
  4. Yes. We were all aware of that. But the way the question was worded was that if we ignore units and just look at the number, which would have a bigger number. Now perform the same calculation for the volume and area for the range { 0<= X<=1 }. You'll not only notice that the volume→∞ as x→0, but you'll also notice that the ln(x) does some pretty funky things. I'll put in a good word for you.
  5. I'm aware of these definitions. But I tend to roll my eyes whenever anyone uses definition #3. Not that it is "perfect." But that it is "magical."
  6. Maybe it is just supposed to be a "fun" question that gets all funned-out when applying analytical physics to the problem. I have a "geek club" that I used to meet with before the quarantine. As part of the process of admittance, they asked the following question: They had apparently been arguing that for the past three weeks. I thought about it for about three seconds and decided, They welcomed me into the club.
  7. A similar deficiency diminished the outlook for the Bautista Procedure. It was believed that the fact it was only used on terminally ill patients tilted the data to one side. Then they decided, what if they did it on otherwise healthy people with only this one defect. There was a boost in survivability. But as years went on, there was a lower survival rate. Now it isn't used much in the US.
  8. You're asking for an impossible situation to be analyzed using real-world physics. Kinda hard to do. But I'll counter an unrealistic condition with another unrealistic condition that should go hand-in-hand with the condition you submitted. If the treadmill is a "perfect quantum treadmill" (TM) whatever that's supposed to mean, then I can say that the surface between the wheels and the axles are also completely frictionless. If those are frictionless, then the treadmill can do whatever it wants, but it applies absolutely no horizontal force to the body of the aircraft. The wheels and treadmill then divide out of the equation completely allowing the plane to function normally despite whatever the treadmill does. The reality is that with all these conditions, the treadmill would stand still.
  9. Only if there is vertical thrust. I'm assuming that your implying that a treadmill means that the plane is not moving horizontally. A regular aircraft gets its lift by the flow of air across its wings. Therefore, no horizontal movement = no vertical force allowing for lift. So an alternative method of vertical thrust must be provided (VTOL). But the problem is more complicated than that. A regular airplane doesn't achieve lift off velocity by wheel force. It achieves it by its jets or propellers. Thus the treadmill is irrelevant.
  10. Terrafugia has two models. The Transition doesn't even carry three people. And there is no way for it to land safely in rough terrain. The TF-X is still concept only. I may be remembering incorrectly, but they scrapped the Transition as they were pursuing the TF-X manufacturing and marketing. As far as I know, the TF-X doesn't actually even have a prototype. It is still awaiting funding to build the first model. The Aerobmobile can at least land on a fairly flat grassy field. None of them so far carry more than two people. Then there's the size issue. For HTOL aircraft, the wings are the primary lifting mechanism. When you have a requirement for a flying mini-van, the wings must be very wide. But with the transitional propeller from VTOL to flight, there can be propeller assist with a shorter wingspan. The shorter wingspan will be easier to fold up in emergency response situations. The eventual, mass produced roadable capability will be much easier to achieve with the VToL. It's a quick solution because it addresses all these issues. It does, however, make it more expensive.
  11. A guy apparently in his 20s or 30s is wearing a tie while riding a homemade amateur hovercraft? Gotta be LDS.
  12. Whatever label you want to put on them doesn't make much of a difference. The requirements outlined in the article are the following: Air Force's label: Advanced Air Mobility Vehicles Applicable uses: medical evacuation installation security disaster relief Eventually scalable to mass produce for the broader public Carry 3 to 8 people @ over 100 mph. Now, we already have small single or twin engine aircraft that can do that. So, considering the mission description, it is likely to be used in difficult terrain. Small aircraft simply cannot have the kind of landing gear required for adverse terrain. So, a VTOL is a quick and dirty solution.
  13. This really is quite impressive from a guy who doesn't have an engineering background. All he needs is proper louvers and funnels with accompanying controls. That would allow a greater altitude and steering capability. He may not even need more/bigger engines if he applies that correctly.
  14. This somewhat addresses the space requirement for take of and landing in an urban setting.
  15. But Truthseaker wasn't Catholic, was she? Not only that. But there are an awful lot of Catholics.
  16. This is an excellent point. If a police officer were to decide on his own whom to arrest and whom to leave alone for committing the same crime, or what laws to enforce and which laws to not enforce, after they've gone through established processes, he's basically taking the law into his own hands. The entire idea behind the Constitution was that it would be better to have a few tyrants with a lot of power counter-acting each other as opposed to a million little tyrants exercising power over their little realms. As much as I like the idea of civil disobedience for unjust laws, one must understand that the right to civil disobedience does have a price. And that price is often that some people will get arrested -- and sometimes killed.
  17. Let's see... False. Also false. True. I think that answers the question.
  18. For the record, as for my part, it was not meant to be used for "shock value." It was just an illustration of how liberals laugh at conservatives who raise a valid concern. Then the liberals validate that concern.
  19. You mean @truthseaker's cousins? No, I think this is a different person.
  20. Gale, Is that normal for you to feign offense when truth is spoken?
  21. Gale, How is it that you mess up understanding the clearly written word so badly, and yet claim that all you have to do is read without any other help in order to understand? My 8 year old was able to read this without anyone having to explain it to him. And he understood it. Do you really expect us to believe that you don't understand what is clearly written? Do you really expect us to believe that you're earnestly seeking the truth? Or are you instead earnestly seeking to purposefully misread things and feign confusion? None of this is confusing to anyone else, including my 8 year old. But you are injecting confusion where there was none. Who brings confusion to a discussion? The Lord? Or Satan? Whom do you serve when you're injecting confusion where there was none before?
  22. What are you calling your "initial" post? I first addressed this: This has nothing to do with "what we call it" or "mass production" or anything you just brought up in the previous post. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just want to understand. I am just getting confused about your posts apparently conflating several issues that are not in direct causal relationship with one another. So, what are you talking about?
  23. But isn't that really what is being encouraged? Regardless of what you actually said or even what your links actually say, that is the end result of the line of reasoning. Pres. Harold B. Lee addresses the "problem of Liberal Mormons." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY9f0WIJ4Jg Now, don't get you dander up. He defines "liberal" not in political terms, but in theological & scholarly terms. He defines it as This statement, as clear as it is, can still be misconstrued to apply to anyone or no one. But in his discourse, he gives more detail to the people he's talking about. He describes the individual who claims membership and even faith and/or testimony, but then goes and tries to justify every belief (or condemn every belief) based on secular standards rather than divine standards -- then seeks to change the Church based on those secular principles (wording is mine). Those articles linked in the OP provide perfect examples of this methodology. And by encouraging this methodology as the means for determining truth takes us away from the Lord and His Spirit. It causes us to ignore the Prophet. I've used the description before. And I'll give it again. People want to create God in their own image rather than remembering that He created us in His image.
  24. Yes, don't you? I mean, you seemed to have READ the BoM. So, you know what it says, right? That's what you are claiming about your belief in salvation.