Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


VonLud last won the day on August 16 2016

VonLud had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

304 Excellent


About VonLud

  • Rank
    Ancient Poster

Recent Profile Visitors

612 profile views
  1. Right, he is all trying to bamboozle with his V shit. And when it comes to the main discrepancy between the two models----"It doesn't work" That's what he says. Watch it again. There is no math used except to dazzle.
  2. At 12:40 is the crux of his argument. He says, "It doesn't work". Wow. Mind blowing.
  3. Like I said, nose down is misleading. Everyone was talking about nose down. Even if the plane was one big flight surface, the nose down would be minimal. Like I also said, it's the angle of attack of the wings that matters. A plane can still descend quickly while the nose is pointing up. You won't find a pilot that disagrees with those statements.
  4. We are just joking. Right Han? I'd hate for you to become angry with me.
  5. You forgot to pull out your NASA training manual showing how they only teach for a flat plane. What's up wit dat?
  6. See my last edit above. Sorry for all the edits. The gyro is for attitude (not altitude) direction, turn and bank. Not altitude. You just set the flight surfaces to maintain altitude. Not gaining nor losing. The fuselage can be at any angle (attitude) you wish. (within reason) I don't think it's that complex.
  7. One more thing @Walk Softly "Nose down" is misleading. I think it has more to do with angle of attack of the flight surface. (Angle of Attack is used to define the angle between the wing chord line and the flight path.) "When the angle is small, the aircraft is said to be at a low angle of attack. When the angle is large, the aircraft is said to be at a high angle of attack. During landing, an airplane may have a level attitude, but a high angle of attack, because the flight path is downward and the approaching wind is parallel to the flight path. During climb, an airplane can be in a nose-high attitude, but at a low angle of attack." http://www.aviation-history.com/theory/angle_of_attack.htm Edit: Example - when the plane is landing, it is descending, but the fuselage stays level or actually nose up.
  8. Half way across the radius of the earth. But that is irrelevant because planes don't fly like that. They maintain altitude.
  9. Hold up a glass of water to the plot I made. http://oi57.tinypic.com/2upy2h5.jpg The water is pretty much flat. Edit: The rim of the glass
  10. LOL I pulled it from a previous thread. Yes. Nose down at -3.6083 degrees achieved with aileron/elevator. Using altitude indicator/artificial horizon http://oi57.tinypic.com/2upy2h5.jpg I don't get the last question.
  11. I did this calculation in my salad days when I was young. You got almost exactly the same drop 2,777 fpm vs. my 2,774.64 Quoted from another thread: "You did make a mistake on this part. 31.53 miles downward curve per hour divided by 60 minutes = 52.55 miles per minute = .87 miles per second (this is wrong) 31.53 miles(curvature) ÷ 60 minutes =.5255 miles(curvature) per minute 5280 X .5255 = 2774.64 ÷ 60 = 46.244 feet(curvature) per second. Using the same 500 MPH number, the plane is traveling 733.33 feet per second. Using a rise over run calculation, the plane has to dip the nose at: -3.6083 DEGREES... I think the angle is the only thing that would matter -3.6083 degrees is not much. I even plotted it out for just such an instance. (I rounded up to 4 degrees too) http://oi57.tinypic.com/2upy2h5.jpg Commercial jets usually fly faster than 500 mph so the angle would be even less. I think your drink would be fine. Hold a glass of water up to the screen and try it out. Maybe that's why it seems like extra effort to get to the bathroom at the back of the plane?... Absolute popycock! The slope of a line = rise over run. https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2g8JSJdCXQghZ5lYB3oh14ADbGTwSRYNz2D41Pk_5YxfLX1L6 To get degrees is a little more complex. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/natureofgeoinfo/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.natureofgeoinfo/files/image/slope_degree.gif I can't show the math because of all the symbols. A scientific calculator helps. Or find a calculator online. The rise was 46.244 (negative) The run was 733.33. You can see that is a shallow ratio/angle." Edit: I used another member's number as a starting point. That may account for the discrepancy between our calculations. But the plane would nose down at a very shallow angle nonetheless.
  12. Galen Winsor would disagree with your stance IMO. He was a full believer in nuclear power and nuclear weapons. He only railed against the lies told about the dangers of nuclear material and radiation. http://www.physiciansforcivildefense.org/2014/06/11/the-nuclear-scare-scam-galen-winsor/ Galen Winsor: "Now in 1945, I was a navy radioman out in the Pacific on a destroyer aimed for Japan. We had a one-way ticket (that’s all you get, just one way). So as we were becoming proficient at our business of fighting war, the Manhattan Project caught up with us and did a job. Now the weapon that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945, was a U-235, a fully enriched U-235 weapon, where the material was separated and purified in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The one that was dropped August 9th on Nagasaki was a plutonium weapon made at Hanford. But to those of us out in the Pacific, it was quite interesting. It had a ticket on it that said, “You get to go home.” I was impressed... But I wanted to go home. I had a driving need within me that said, “Hey, that big firecracker—I want to know how it works. I want to know everything about how it works.”... Plutonium has been assessed as being the most hazardous material on earth. Now from the standpoint that you can make an atomic weapon out of it, yes it is quite hazardous. Because of piece of it that big (2 ½ kilograms—that’s only five pounds) is the force that delivered 20,000 tons of TNT equivalent over Nagasaki. Indeed it is hazardous. The one over Hiroshima that had fully enriched U-235 in it was five times as big. So plutonium is more dangerous than U235, is it not? By a factor of five. It takes five times as much U-235 as it does plutonium. Therefore, it is the most hazardous thing... Yes. And the studies of the people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have borne that out. Those people do not have that. Now they show the immediate effects of too much radiation. The women who were pregnant, the embryo showed very similar effects to rubella, to measles, some deformities certainly from that radiation insult, but that’s not the kind of mutation that’s going to go on to the next generation.... The daughter of this, radon, cannot be read on this instrument because it gives off alpha particles. An alpha particle is a di-positive particle that comes from the nucleus. It has two protons and two neutrons; therefore, an atomic weight of 4, and it has minus 2 electrons. And if you grab it with a high ionization potential counter, it’ll count. But if it travels two inches in the air or through a piece of paper, it picks up two electrons, two beta particles if you will, and becomes helium gas and it won’t count on an ionization chamber. Did you know that this thing right here is giving off helium gas? Alpha comes from uranium." Read the whole thing at the link. Quite fascinating.
  13. Look into these, if you like: Atomic Mass/Number Isotopes Ions Plasma Cathode/Anode Rays MRI Proton Beam Neutron Diffraction Rutherford 1911 Chadwick 1932 DARPA PBW
  14. I noticed you cited the UNSCEAR Chernobyl Report. Well, actually an article about a snip from the summary of one of the reports. It left out this part: Health effects The Chernobyl accident caused many severe radiation effects almost immediately. Of 600 workers present on the site during the early morning of 26 April 1986, 134 received high doses (0.8-16 Gy) and suffered from radiation sickness. Of these, 28 died in the first three months and another 19 died in 1987-2004 of various causes not necessarily associated with radiation exposure. This too: Among the residents of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there had been up to the year 2005 more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases can be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding the influence of enhanced screening regimes, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident. UNSCEAR Chernobyl Report Summary: http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html UNSCEAR Chernobyl Reports: 1988: http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/1988annexd.pdf 2000: http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2000/Volume II_Effects/AnnexJ_pages 451-566.pdf 2008: http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf
  15. It's your ass that is showing. 40 men in a room is the holding cell in booking. You know, where they put you before your mom bailed you out. After stuffing that My Little Pony in your shorts at Toys R Us.