Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure"

[Jim Logajan]

The following thread on the Van's Air Force web site was of general enough
interest that I thought it worthwhile to bring it to the attention of other
pilots:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24147

Would be quite useful if it really worked. Of course there would still be
strikes with inattentive and near-sighted birds. ;-)

[Blueskies]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message .. .
> The following thread on the Van's Air Force web site was of general enough
> interest that I thought it worthwhile to bring it to the attention of other
> pilots:
>
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24147
>
> Would be quite useful if it really worked. Of course there would still be
> strikes with inattentive and near-sighted birds. ;-)

I wonder about doing the candy stripe spiral on them, or painting the blades different colors...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> The following thread on the Van's Air Force web site was of general
> enough interest that I thought it worthwhile to bring it to the
> attention of other pilots:
>
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24147
>
> Would be quite useful if it really worked. Of course there would still
> be strikes with inattentive and near-sighted birds. ;-)

Hmm, couldn't hurt!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in
t:

>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> The following thread on the Van's Air Force web site was of general
>> enough interest that I thought it worthwhile to bring it to the
>> attention of other pilots:
>>
>> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24147
>>
>> Would be quite useful if it really worked. Of course there would
>> still be strikes with inattentive and near-sighted birds. ;-)
>
> I wonder about doing the candy stripe spiral on them, or painting the
> blades different colors...
>
>

No, that woudl cause people to become hypnotised and walk into the prop.


Haven't you ever watched Batman?

Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> The following thread on the Van's Air Force web site was of general
>> enough
>> interest that I thought it worthwhile to bring it to the attention of
>> other
>> pilots:
>>
>> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24147
>>
>> Would be quite useful if it really worked. Of course there would still be
>> strikes with inattentive and near-sighted birds. ;-)
>
> I wonder about doing the candy stripe spiral on them, or painting the
> blades different colors...
>

There is a design used on the American Airlines (and perhaps others) high
bypass engines that is reported to be effective too. Might check it out at
airliners.com or something. Considering visibility difference and rotation
speed, the design you are testing appears even more visible. My guess is, it
will work.

[Maxwell]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> t...
>>
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> The following thread on the Van's Air Force web site was of general
>>> enough
>>> interest that I thought it worthwhile to bring it to the attention of
>>> other
>>> pilots:
>>>
>>> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24147
>>>
>>> Would be quite useful if it really worked. Of course there would still
>>> be
>>> strikes with inattentive and near-sighted birds. ;-)
>>
>> I wonder about doing the candy stripe spiral on them, or painting the
>> blades different colors...
>>
>
> There is a design used on the American Airlines (and perhaps others) high
> bypass engines that is reported to be effective too. Might check it out at
> airliners.com or something. Considering visibility difference and rotation
> speed, the design you are testing appears even more visible. My guess is,
> it will work.
>

http://tinyurl.com/2yjh2c

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:02:07 -0600, "Maxwell" >
wrote:

>
>"Blueskies" > wrote in message
t...
>>
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> The following thread on the Van's Air Force web site was of general
>>> enough
>>> interest that I thought it worthwhile to bring it to the attention of
>>> other
>>> pilots:
>>>
>>> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24147
>>>
>>> Would be quite useful if it really worked. Of course there would still be
>>> strikes with inattentive and near-sighted birds. ;-)

I rate this things right in there with the old ultrasonic deer
whistles you put in your car grill. Driving down the road was supposed
to put out a noise to scare the deer. Somebody made a small fortune on
those before they proved they don't work.

>>
>> I wonder about doing the candy stripe spiral on them, or painting the
>> blades different colors...
>>
>
>There is a design used on the American Airlines (and perhaps others) high
>bypass engines that is reported to be effective too. Might check it out at
>airliners.com or something. Considering visibility difference and rotation

That's used to let people on the ground know if the engine is still
turning. An engine coasting to a stop is nearly silent and is silent
if you are out on the ramp wearing hearing protection.


Roger (K8RI)

>speed, the design you are testing appears even more visible. My guess is, it
>will work.
>
>
>
>
>

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:09:30 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>The following thread on the Van's Air Force web site was of general enough
>interest that I thought it worthwhile to bring it to the attention of other
>pilots:
>
>http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24147

At cruise RPM that effect would be completely lost. There's not a
bird or human alive that can discern stroboscopic effects of more than
a couple hundred cycles let alone over a 1000. Most of us can't even
discern 60 cps.

Roger (K8RI)
>
>Would be quite useful if it really worked. Of course there would still be
>strikes with inattentive and near-sighted birds. ;-)

[[email protected]]

On Dec 2, 5:59 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:02:07 -0600, "Maxwell" >
> wrote:
>
> That's used to let people on the ground know if the engine is still
> turning. An engine coasting to a stop is nearly silent and is silent
> if you are out on the ramp wearing hearing protection.
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>

Incorrect. The spiral on the fan hub is a bird deterrent measure. It
has nothing to do with ground personnel.

[Mike Noel]

True, but aren't we talking about 40 cps when the prop RPM is 2400?

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

If any question why we died, tell them, "Because our fathers lied."
- Rudyard Kipling.
"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:09:30 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote:
>
>>The following thread on the Van's Air Force web site was of general enough
>>interest that I thought it worthwhile to bring it to the attention of
>>other
>>pilots:
>>
>>http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24147
>
> At cruise RPM that effect would be completely lost. There's not a
> bird or human alive that can discern stroboscopic effects of more than
> a couple hundred cycles let alone over a 1000. Most of us can't even
> discern 60 cps.
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>>Would be quite useful if it really worked. Of course there would still be
>>strikes with inattentive and near-sighted birds. ;-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:5fc94b93-52e4-4ee4-8c59-d46cd92a6702
@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> On Dec 2, 5:59 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:02:07 -0600, "Maxwell" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> That's used to let people on the ground know if the engine is still
>> turning. An engine coasting to a stop is nearly silent and is silent
>> if you are out on the ramp wearing hearing protection.
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>
> Incorrect. The spiral on the fan hub is a bird deterrent measure. It
> has nothing to do with ground personnel.

We use them to hypnotise ground staff into loading the chemicals we spray
out at altitude...


Bertie

[Maxwell]

>> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:09:30 -0000, Jim Logajan >
>> wrote:
>>
>> At cruise RPM that effect would be completely lost. There's not a
>> bird or human alive that can discern stroboscopic effects of more than
>> a couple hundred cycles let alone over a 1000. Most of us can't even
>> discern 60 cps.
>>


"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
...
> True, but aren't we talking about 40 cps when the prop RPM is 2400?
>

Seems I have heard the 16 cps is all that is required for movies to appear
continuous. I think the human eye loosed it around 12 or 13. However, we
don't seen consciously either. Hence the reason an aircraft propeller will
appear to be revolving slowly backwards at times.

I can say I worked in the engine shop at American for 15 years, and we were
always told it was a very cost effective bird strike tool. But that is no
guarantee. We always did say if you hadn't heard a good rumor my 10:00 am,
then start one.

But then again, it shouldn't be needed by ground personnel. If someone can
look at a high bypass engine and tell if it's turning fast enough to be
dangerous, the need to be teaching English in France or something.

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
Maxwell > wrote:
>
>>> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:09:30 -0000, Jim Logajan >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> At cruise RPM that effect would be completely lost. There's not a
>>> bird or human alive that can discern stroboscopic effects of more than
>>> a couple hundred cycles let alone over a 1000. Most of us can't even
>>> discern 60 cps.
>>>
>
>
>"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
...
>> True, but aren't we talking about 40 cps when the prop RPM is 2400?
>>
>
>Seems I have heard the 16 cps is all that is required for movies to appear
>continuous. I think the human eye loosed it around 12 or 13. However, we
>don't seen consciously either. Hence the reason an aircraft propeller will
>appear to be revolving slowly backwards at times.

Visual perception is funny and complex.

black & white films were 16 frames/second.
Color films are 24 frames/second

U.S. TV is 60 fields/second, European is 50/second.
This is driven more by the need for phospors that 'decay' rapidly enough
to not produce 'blurred' motion than perception issues.

OTOH, A significant number of people can perceive 'flicker' in conventional-
tube fluorescent lamps. which is at 120 flickers/second.

Also, the eye -- and brain -- 'notices' things that are too fleeting for
conscious identification. Google 'subliminal' advertizing -- IIRC, lab
tests showed that injected imagery with a duration of only a few milliseconds
had 'measurable' effects.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> At cruise RPM that effect would be completely lost. There's not a
> bird or human alive that can discern stroboscopic effects of more than
> a couple hundred cycles let alone over a 1000. Most of us can't even
> discern 60 cps.

Birds have much better vision than human beings, and I don't believe anyone
has tested their ability to discern stroboscopic effects. And the front fan
on a turbofan is turning at around 40-50 revolutions per second, not
thousands.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Seems I have heard the 16 cps is all that is required for movies to appear
> continuous.

Motion pictures use 24 ips, repeated once, giving 48 fps (24 images shown
twice each). The motion is smooth as long as the image isn't too bright,
large, or fast-moving. Sometimes a stroboscopic effect can be seen in the
latter cases. It can be hidden by allowing image elements to blur.

You can see this effect very clearly on TV (30 ips in the U.S.) when sporting
events are showing that have been recorded with high shutter rates in the
cameras. Each image is sharp and it's easy to see that a succession of
individual images is being shown on the screen, even at 30 ips.

> I think the human eye loosed it around 12 or 13.

Higher than that. Twelve images per second tends to look noticeably jerky.

> Hence the reason an aircraft propeller will
> appear to be revolving slowly backwards at times.

Not when being observed directly. That only happens in movies and video due
to the interaction between the imaging rate and the rotation rate of the
propeller.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
> We use them to hypnotise ground staff into loading the chemicals we spray
> out at altitude...
Have you been making spray clouds of dihydrogen oxide, again.

I thought there was finally a ban on loading that stuff onto airplanes,
except for small amounts that are directly used by the passengers.
--
Jim in NC

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Seems I have heard the 16 cps is all that is required for movies to
>> appear
>> continuous.
>
> Motion pictures use 24 ips, repeated once, giving 48 fps (24 images shown
> twice each). The motion is smooth as long as the image isn't too bright,
> large, or fast-moving. Sometimes a stroboscopic effect can be seen in the
> latter cases. It can be hidden by allowing image elements to blur.
>
> You can see this effect very clearly on TV (30 ips in the U.S.) when
> sporting
> events are showing that have been recorded with high shutter rates in the
> cameras. Each image is sharp and it's easy to see that a succession of
> individual images is being shown on the screen, even at 30 ips.
>
>> I think the human eye loosed it around 12 or 13.
>
> Higher than that. Twelve images per second tends to look noticeably
> jerky.
>
>> Hence the reason an aircraft propeller will
>> appear to be revolving slowly backwards at times.
>
> Not when being observed directly. That only happens in movies and video
> due
> to the interaction between the imaging rate and the rotation rate of the
> propeller.

Wrong again you clueless twit.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Roger (K8RI) writes:
>
>> At cruise RPM that effect would be completely lost. There's not a
>> bird or human alive that can discern stroboscopic effects of more than
>> a couple hundred cycles let alone over a 1000. Most of us can't even
>> discern 60 cps.
>
> Birds have much better vision than human beings, and I don't believe
> anyone
> has tested their ability to discern stroboscopic effects. And the front
> fan
> on a turbofan is turning at around 40-50 revolutions per second, not
> thousands.

Guess again.

[Stefan]

Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:

> Hz flicker CRT televisions, and most people don't notice it. Americans
> who've grown up with 60 Hz NTSC report noticing bad flicker with
> European PAL televisions.

But they see at last twice the same colour... :-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>>
>> We use them to hypnotise ground staff into loading the chemicals we
>> spray out at altitude...
> Have you been making spray clouds of dihydrogen oxide, again.
>
> I thought there was finally a ban on loading that stuff onto
> airplanes, except for small amounts that are directly used by the
> passengers.

Absolutely. As indicated in another thread, we'r eonly allowed ethanol
dotchaknow?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Seems I have heard the 16 cps is all that is required for movies to
>> appear continuous.
>
> Motion pictures use 24 ips, repeated once,


Blah blah, cut and paste boi does it again.

Boring.

Bring out a sockpuppet again! That was fuuuun!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Roger (K8RI) writes:
>
>> At cruise RPM that effect would be completely lost. There's not a
>> bird or human alive that can discern stroboscopic effects of more
>> than a couple hundred cycles let alone over a 1000. Most of us can't
>> even discern 60 cps.
>
> Birds have much better vision than human beings, and I don't believe
> anyone has tested their ability to discern stroboscopic effects.

What using your parakeet as a wing man now in combat sim games?



Bertie

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> And the front fan on a turbofan is turning at around 40-50 revolutions per
second, not
> thousands.

My phonograph turns at either 33-1/3 or 45 RPM, which is just as relevant to
this conversation as your mention of turbofans.

[Airbus[_2_]]

In article >,
says...

>
>Visual perception is funny and complex.
>
>black & white films were 16 frames/second.
>Color films are 24 frames/second


The frame-rate was increased from 16 to 24 at the introduction of sound (not
color). The increased linear speed was desirable to improve fidelity of the
analog optical soundtrack on the film. In either case, 24 or 16 FPS, each image
is projected three or two times (respectively) to produce an effective rate of
48 - this was done to avoid perception of flicker.


>
>Also, the eye -- and brain -- 'notices' things that are too fleeting for
>conscious identification. Google 'subliminal' advertizing -- IIRC, lab
>tests showed that injected imagery with a duration of only a few milliseconds
>had 'measurable' effects.
>
>

Oh NO! Not Vance Packard and the "Hidden Persuaders"!!

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,


> The frame-rate was increased from 16 to 24 at the introduction of sound
(not
> color). The increased linear speed was desirable to improve fidelity of
the
> analog optical soundtrack on the film. In either case, 24 or 16 FPS, each
image
> is projected three or two times (respectively) to produce an effective
rate of
> 48 - this was done to avoid perception of flicker.


Anyone know off hand what the frame rate was for home movies (8mm)?

[soaringpilot2]

> I wonder about doing the candy stripe spiral on them, or painting the blades different colors...


The candy stripe spiral on the spinner was a recognition thing, the
Germans started doing that in the summer of '44. The Japanese did
something similar thru the war years by painting the inboard leading
edge of the wing yellow. Quick recognition by your comrades in a
dogfight when head on...

This is the first I've heard of the 1/3 and 2/3's strobe effect, I
thought it was also for recognition...Maybe I'll try it on my 172...

-Ryan

[[email protected]]

> U.S. TV is 60 fields/second, European is 50/second.

And it takes two interlaced fields to make a frame, therefore US
broadcast TV standard (NTSC) is actually only 30 frames per second.
Europe's PAL and SECAM standards are both 50 interlaced fields per
second, yielding 25 actual frames per second.

[Maxwell]

"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, says...
>
>>>
>>>> Hence the reason an aircraft propeller will
>>>> appear to be revolving slowly backwards at times.
>>>
>>> Not when being observed directly. That only happens in movies and video
>>> due
>>> to the interaction between the imaging rate and the rotation rate of the
>>> propeller.
>>
>>Wrong again you clueless twit.
>>
>>
>
> No, he is right this time.

No he isn't.

[Maxwell]

"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, says...
>>
>>
>>
>>"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hence the reason an aircraft propeller will
>>>>>> appear to be revolving slowly backwards at times.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not when being observed directly. That only happens in movies and
>>>>> video
>>>>> due
>>>>> to the interaction between the imaging rate and the rotation rate of
>>>>> the
>>>>> propeller.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong again you clueless twit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, he is right this time.
>>
>>No he isn't.
>>
>
> Wellllllllll..............
> The world is listening . . .
>

Indeed.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Airbus > wrote:
> In article >, says...
> >
> >
> >
> >"Airbus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >, says...
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hence the reason an aircraft propeller will
> >>>>> appear to be revolving slowly backwards at times.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not when being observed directly. That only happens in movies and video
> >>>> due
> >>>> to the interaction between the imaging rate and the rotation rate of the
> >>>> propeller.
> >>>
> >>>Wrong again you clueless twit.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, he is right this time.
> >
> >No he isn't.
> >

> Wellllllllll..............
> The world is listening . . .

When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
lights that have flicker.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell]

"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, says...
>>
>>
>>
>>"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >, says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hence the reason an aircraft propeller will
>>>>>>>> appear to be revolving slowly backwards at times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not when being observed directly. That only happens in movies and
>>>>>>> video
>>>>>>> due
>>>>>>> to the interaction between the imaging rate and the rotation rate of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> propeller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wrong again you clueless twit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, he is right this time.
>>>>
>>>>No he isn't.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wellllllllll..............
>>> The world is listening . . .
>>>
>>
>>Indeed.
>
> Still listening . . .
>
> Simple question, to get you started on your explanation;
> Have you ever been in a propeller-driven airplane?
>>
>>

I have been a pilot since 1972.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

soaringpilot2 > wrote in
:

>
>> I wonder about doing the candy stripe spiral on them, or painting the
>> blades different colors...
>
>
> The candy stripe spiral on the spinner was a recognition thing, the
> Germans started doing that in the summer of '44. The Japanese did
> something similar thru the war years by painting the inboard leading
> edge of the wing yellow. Quick recognition by your comrades in a
> dogfight when head on...
>
> This is the first I've heard of the 1/3 and 2/3's strobe effect, I
> thought it was also for recognition...Maybe I'll try it on my 172...


I asked in my shop and sure enough I was told that our spinners have the
spiral on them for bird avoidance.
We also used to turn our radar on in cavu weather for the same reason, but
now we turn it on for every flight anyway..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Airbus > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> says...
>
>>
>>When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
>>obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
>>lights that have flicker.
>>
>>--
>
>
> Fine - but which ones cause you to see the propellers turning in
> apparent reverse? Do you frequently operate your airplane indoors?
> Propellers are usually observed in natural light, which does not
> flicker. At night, on the rare occasions where you actually see the
> props clearly, it is from the aircraft's own lighting, which is DC. I
> have nbever seen the props turning backwards on a real plane - see
> it frequently in movies though. . .

At least one exception. If you look at a prop through your own prop arc...


Bertie
>
>

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, says...
> >Wrong again you clueless twit.
>
> No, he is right this time.
>

Rule #1: MX is never right

Rule #2: Is by some wild mistake (think monkeys typing) , MX is not actually
incorrect, see rule #1

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Airbus > wrote:
> In article >, says...

> >
> >When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
> >obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
> >lights that have flicker.
> >
> >--


> Fine - but which ones cause you to see the propellers turning in
> apparent reverse? Do you frequently operate your airplane indoors?
> Propellers are usually observed in natural light, which does not flicker. At
> night, on the rare occasions where you actually see the props clearly, it is
> from the aircraft's own lighting, which is DC. I have nbever seen the props
> turning backwards on a real plane - see it frequently in movies though. . .

Any light that flickers at an appropriate rate will cause the prop to
appear to turn in reverse.

The likelyhood of being somewhere with lights that flicker is irrelevant.

The original statement was that it ->ONLY<- happens in movies and video, and
that absolute statement is false as are most of MX's absolute statements.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Yes - I have a name" > wrote in
news:os_4j.1920$QS.1236@trndny03:

> "Airbus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> says...
>> >Wrong again you clueless twit.
>>
>> No, he is right this time.
>>
>
> Rule #1: MX is never right
>
> Rule #2: Is by some wild mistake (think monkeys typing) , MX is not
> actually incorrect, see rule #1
>

We'll have to make up a Wickepedia entry with his as the opening paragraph.


Bertie
>
>

[Steve Hix]

In article <twV4j.1755$QS.57@trndny03>,
"Yes - I have a name" > wrote:

> "Airbus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
>
>
> > The frame-rate was increased from 16 to 24 at the introduction of sound
> (not
> > color). The increased linear speed was desirable to improve fidelity of
> the
> > analog optical soundtrack on the film. In either case, 24 or 16 FPS, each
> image
> > is projected three or two times (respectively) to produce an effective
> rate of
> > 48 - this was done to avoid perception of flicker.
>
>
> Anyone know off hand what the frame rate was for home movies (8mm)?

It was supposed to project at 16fps, which makes for a bit of adjustment
when converting old home movies to DVD.

[Maxwell]

"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>
>>When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
>>obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
>>lights that have flicker.
>>
>>--
>
>
> Fine - but which ones cause you to see the propellers turning in
> apparent reverse? Do you frequently operate your airplane indoors?
> Propellers are usually observed in natural light, which does not flicker.
> At
> night, on the rare occasions where you actually see the props clearly, it
> is
> from the aircraft's own lighting, which is DC. I have nbever seen the
> props
> turning backwards on a real plane - see it frequently in movies though.
> . .
>

Do you really think you see and visualize motion constantly. Perhaps you
should spend a little more time around and airport yourself. Many
propellers, especially the large diameter props found on radial engines,
will appear at times to be rotating slower, or backwards. It's a fainter
image than recorded on film, but the partnership of the human eye and brain
does not realize fluid motion.

Motion pictures captured on film greatly exaggerates the phenomenon. Some of
the new video equipment will seem to even stop a prop to the extent it's
distracting to the quality of the recording. But the human visual system
well do so as well, just to a much lesser extent.

[Bill Daniels]

"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>
>>When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
>>obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
>>lights that have flicker.
>>
>>--
>
>
> Fine - but which ones cause you to see the propellers turning in
> apparent reverse? Do you frequently operate your airplane indoors?
> Propellers are usually observed in natural light, which does not flicker.
> At
> night, on the rare occasions where you actually see the props clearly, it
> is
> from the aircraft's own lighting, which is DC. I have nbever seen the
> props
> turning backwards on a real plane - see it frequently in movies though.
> . .
>

Apparently, you aren't familiar with the trick of calibrating your
tachometer with the 120Hz flickering of mercury or sodium ramp lights.

Bill D

[Just go look it up!]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:52:04 -0800, Airbus > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>
>>
>>When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
>>obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
>>lights that have flicker.
>>
>>--
>
>
>Fine - but which ones cause you to see the propellers turning in
>apparent reverse? Do you frequently operate your airplane indoors?
>Propellers are usually observed in natural light, which does not flicker. At
>night, on the rare occasions where you actually see the props clearly, it is
>from the aircraft's own lighting, which is DC. I have nbever seen the props
>turning backwards on a real plane - see it frequently in movies though. . .

Night, near one of those big off-amber ramp lights, run the RPM up and
down, there's a range where it will look like it's going backwards. I
thought it was kind of interesting.

It's something similar to the poor-man's "is my RPM somewhat right"
test, it'll appear stopped at (I forget what RPM now) RPM and if your
tach is somewhat near, viola.

[Harry K]

On Dec 3, 2:45 pm, Just go look it up! > wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:52:04 -0800, Airbus > wrote:
> >In article >, says...
>
> >>When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
> >>obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
> >>lights that have flicker.
>
> >>--
>
> >Fine - but which ones cause you to see the propellers turning in
> >apparent reverse? Do you frequently operate your airplane indoors?
> >Propellers are usually observed in natural light, which does not flicker. At
> >night, on the rare occasions where you actually see the props clearly, it is
> >from the aircraft's own lighting, which is DC. I have nbever seen the props
> >turning backwards on a real plane - see it frequently in movies though. . .
>
> Night, near one of those big off-amber ramp lights, run the RPM up and
> down, there's a range where it will look like it's going backwards. I
> thought it was kind of interesting.
>
> It's something similar to the poor-man's "is my RPM somewhat right"
> test, it'll appear stopped at (I forget what RPM now) RPM and if your
> tach is somewhat near, viola.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Been a long, long time but my rusty math skills says it would be about
3600 unless I am wrong (per wife that is my normal state). That is
the 1/2 harmonic of the rpm/flicker rate. 60 X 120 = 7200. The
phenomenon should appear at 1/2, 1/4, double rate etc intervals.

Harry K

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And it takes two interlaced fields to make a frame, therefore US
> broadcast TV standard (NTSC) is actually only 30 frames per second.

30 images, 60 frames

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
> obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
> lights that have flicker.

That is an artifact of the lighting, not of human vision.

Additionally, natural light (e.g., sunlight) does not flicker.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> And it takes two interlaced fields to make a frame, therefore US
>> broadcast TV standard (NTSC) is actually only 30 frames per second.
>
> 30 images, 60 frames
>

You're an idiot


Berie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Any light that flickers at an appropriate rate will cause the prop to
> appear to turn in reverse.
>
> The likelyhood of being somewhere with lights that flicker is irrelevant.

It's highly relevant in aviation, where exposure to flickering lights is
essentially unknown.

> The original statement was that it ->ONLY<- happens in movies and video, and
> that absolute statement is false as are most of MX's absolute statements.

The original assertion was that it was an artifact of human vision, which is
never true.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Do you really think you see and visualize motion constantly. Perhaps you
> should spend a little more time around and airport yourself. Many
> propellers, especially the large diameter props found on radial engines,
> will appear at times to be rotating slower, or backwards. It's a fainter
> image than recorded on film, but the partnership of the human eye and brain
> does not realize fluid motion.

This is completely incorrect. Human vision produces no such artifact.
Anything moving beyond a certain speed is simply a blur; it never appears to
move backwards.

> Motion pictures captured on film greatly exaggerates the phenomenon.

No, motion pictures PRODUCE the phenomenon. It's an artifact of the motion
picture, not human vision.

> Some of the new video equipment will seem to even stop a prop to the
> extent it's distracting to the quality of the recording.

That is a function of shutter speed.

> But the human visual system well do so as well, just to a much lesser extent.

No, the human visual system will not do it at all.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Guess again.

It wasn't a guess.

[Mxsmanic]

Yes - I have a name writes:

> My phonograph turns at either 33-1/3 or 45 RPM, which is just as relevant to
> this conversation as your mention of turbofans.

At any given moment there are thousands of aircraft powered by turbofans in
flight.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
>> obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
>> lights that have flicker.
>
> That is an artifact of the lighting, not of human vision.
>
> Additionally, natural light (e.g., sunlight) does not flicker.
>

How would you know, ever seen sunlight?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Any light that flickers at an appropriate rate will cause the prop to
>> appear to turn in reverse.
>>
>> The likelyhood of being somewhere with lights that flicker is
>> irrelevant.
>
> It's highly relevant in aviation, where exposure to flickering lights
> is essentially unknown.



Bwawhahwahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwha!

Another gem from the master.


Bertie

[Airbus[_2_]]

In article >, says...

>>
>>> Hence the reason an aircraft propeller will
>>> appear to be revolving slowly backwards at times.
>>
>> Not when being observed directly. That only happens in movies and video
>> due
>> to the interaction between the imaging rate and the rotation rate of the
>> propeller.
>
>Wrong again you clueless twit.
>
>

No, he is right this time.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Do you really think you see and visualize motion constantly. Perhaps
>> you should spend a little more time around and airport yourself. Many
>> propellers, especially the large diameter props found on radial
>> engines, will appear at times to be rotating slower, or backwards.
>> It's a fainter image than recorded on film, but the partnership of
>> the human eye and brain does not realize fluid motion.
>
> This is completely incorrect. Human vision produces no such artifact.
> Anything moving beyond a certain speed is simply a blur; it never
> appears to move backwards.
>


Too easy


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Guess again.
>
> It wasn't a guess.

It wasn't anythign


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Yes - I have a name writes:
>
>> My phonograph turns at either 33-1/3 or 45 RPM, which is just as
>> relevant to this conversation as your mention of turbofans.
>
> At any given moment there are thousands of aircraft powered by
> turbofans in flight.
>


None of which you are on.


Ever

Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> The original assertion was that it was an artifact of human vision, which
> is
> never true.

Keep digging, and guessing. God you are stupid.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is completely incorrect. Human vision produces no such artifact.
> Anything moving beyond a certain speed is simply a blur; it never appears
> to
> move backwards.
>
> No, motion pictures PRODUCE the phenomenon. It's an artifact of the
> motion
> picture, not human vision.
>
> That is a function of shutter speed.
>
> No, the human visual system will not do it at all.

Keep digging, you are half way to China already.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

STANDARD FLAME POST version 3.432 (c) 1996-1997. Check all that apply.

Dear:
[ ] Clueless Newbie [ ] AOL subscriber [ ] WebTV subscriber
[X] Lamer [ ] Me too-er [ ] Mr. President
[ ] Geek [ ] Spammer [ ] Racist
[ ] Freak [X] Dummy [X] "Expert"

You Are Being Flamed Because:
[ ] You quoted an entire post in your reply
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[X] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You posted a binary file to a non-binary newsgroup
[x] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message
[ ] You posted a "test" message to a newsgroup other than alt.test
[ ] You said "me too" to something
[X] You claimed "X rules, Y sucks" but failed to support your lame
statements with evidence
[ ] You brag about things that never happened
[ ] Your sig is obnoxiously long
[ ] You posted a cyber-sex/phone-sex ad
[ ] You posted a MMF (Make Money Fast) chain letter
[ ] You claimed that a pyramid scheme is legal
[ ] You crossposted this message to at least a ZILLION newsgroups
[ ] You obviously don't know how to use your software
[ ] YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE THE CAPS LOCK KEY
[X] You didn't do anything specific, but you are generally so worthless
that you are being flamed anyway
[ ] You posted racist crap disguised as information

To Repent, You Must:
[ ] Give up your AOL account
[x] Give up your WebTV account
[X] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it
[X] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor
[ ] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Read and memorize the FAQ
[X] Ask your husband/wife/life partner to slap you, REAL HARD!
[X] Ask your mommy to up your medication
[X] Be the guest of honor in alt.flame for a month
[X] Stop smoking whatever you were smoking

In Closing, I'd Like to Say:
[X] Get a clue [X] Get a life
[X] Grow up [ ] Never crosspost again
[X] I pity your dog [ ] Take your stuff somewhere else
[ ] Learn how to post or get off [X] This is your LAST warning!
[ ] All of the above


"I am Fudd of Borg. Wesistance is usewess!"

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Guess again.
>
> It wasn't a guess.

Of coarse it is, you prove yourself as clueless as ever. You and your
friend AirBuzz need to do your home work. Your unwillingness to experience
the real world has left you short of observing such a thing with your own
eyes.

Get out of your basement and go to the airport. This phenomenon is apparent
to the naked eye under continuous lighting conditions. You might need to
wait for a three or four blade prop, but it DOES happen in real life.
Something your prove once again you know little or nothing about.

[Maxwell]

Priceless, thanks for a really good laugh.

[Airbus]

In article >, says...
>
>
>
>"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, says...
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hence the reason an aircraft propeller will
>>>>> appear to be revolving slowly backwards at times.
>>>>
>>>> Not when being observed directly. That only happens in movies and video
>>>> due
>>>> to the interaction between the imaging rate and the rotation rate of the
>>>> propeller.
>>>
>>>Wrong again you clueless twit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, he is right this time.
>
>No he isn't.
>

Wellllllllll..............
The world is listening . . .

[Airbus]

In article >, says...
>
>
>
>"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
>>>> In article >, says...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hence the reason an aircraft propeller will
>>>>>>> appear to be revolving slowly backwards at times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not when being observed directly. That only happens in movies and
>>>>>> video
>>>>>> due
>>>>>> to the interaction between the imaging rate and the rotation rate of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> propeller.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong again you clueless twit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, he is right this time.
>>>
>>>No he isn't.
>>>
>>
>> Wellllllllll..............
>> The world is listening . . .
>>
>
>Indeed.

Still listening . . .

Simple question, to get you started on your explanation;
Have you ever been in a propeller-driven airplane?
>
>

[Airbus]

In article >, says...

>
>When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
>obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
>lights that have flicker.
>
>--


Fine - but which ones cause you to see the propellers turning in
apparent reverse? Do you frequently operate your airplane indoors?
Propellers are usually observed in natural light, which does not flicker. At
night, on the rare occasions where you actually see the props clearly, it is
from the aircraft's own lighting, which is DC. I have nbever seen the props
turning backwards on a real plane - see it frequently in movies though. . .

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Yes - I have a name writes:
>
>> My phonograph turns at either 33-1/3 or 45 RPM, which is just as relevant
>> to
>> this conversation as your mention of turbofans.
>
> At any given moment there are thousands of aircraft powered by turbofans
> in
> flight.

Most phonograph records have been replaced by CDs

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Maxwell" > said:
>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> This is completely incorrect. Human vision produces no such artifact.
>> Anything moving beyond a certain speed is simply a blur; it never appears
>> to
>> move backwards.
>>
>> No, motion pictures PRODUCE the phenomenon. It's an artifact of the
>> motion
>> picture, not human vision.
>>
>> That is a function of shutter speed.
>>
>> No, the human visual system will not do it at all.
>
>Keep digging, you are half way to China already.

Except in this case he's absolutely right.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
IMAP is just not a very rich protocol.
-- Steve Conn, Exchange Server product manager for Microsoft

[Maxwell]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Maxwell" > said:
>>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>>> This is completely incorrect. Human vision produces no such artifact.
>>> Anything moving beyond a certain speed is simply a blur; it never
>>> appears
>>> to
>>> move backwards.
>>>
>>> No, motion pictures PRODUCE the phenomenon. It's an artifact of the
>>> motion
>>> picture, not human vision.
>>>
>>> That is a function of shutter speed.
>>>
>>> No, the human visual system will not do it at all.
>>
>>Keep digging, you are half way to China already.
>
> Except in this case he's absolutely right.
>

Sorry Paul, but he certainly is not.

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Maxwell" > said:
> >"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> This is completely incorrect. Human vision produces no such artifact.
> >> Anything moving beyond a certain speed is simply a blur; it never
appears
> >> to
> >> move backwards.
> >>
> >> No, motion pictures PRODUCE the phenomenon. It's an artifact of the
> >> motion
> >> picture, not human vision.
> >>
> >> That is a function of shutter speed.
> >>
> >> No, the human visual system will not do it at all.
> >
> >Keep digging, you are half way to China already.
>
> Except in this case he's absolutely right.
>

I'm sure I've seen wheels on cars that appear to be moving backwards. Are my
eyes defective?

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Yes - I have a name" > wrote in message
news:H1d5j.7404$gs.1663@trndny08...
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> This is completely incorrect. Human vision produces no such
artifact.
> > >> Anything moving beyond a certain speed is simply a blur; it never
> appears
> > >> to
> > >> move backwards.
> > Except in this case he's absolutely right.
> >
>
> I'm sure I've seen wheels on cars that appear to be moving backwards. Are
my
> eyes defective?
>
>

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n8_v17/ai_18471030

I guess I'm not the only one.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Yes - I have a name" > wrote in news:M5d5j.7405
$gs.5036@trndny08:

> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n8_v17/ai_18471030

Jesus, Anthony is like a wrong weathervane.

I'm going to start asking him for lottery numbers.



Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And it takes two interlaced fields to make a frame, therefore US
>> broadcast TV standard (NTSC) is actually only 30 frames per second.
>
> 30 images, 60 frames

Wrong, exactly backwards wrong. Rutger was correct.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

cavelamb himself wrote:
> STANDARD FLAME POST version 3.432 (c) 1996-1997. Check all that apply.
>

I hadn't seen that in a long time. You need to update though to the
4.0(rec.aviation) version.

It replaces all of that with.

Shut the **** up, MX.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> cavelamb himself wrote:
>> STANDARD FLAME POST version 3.432 (c) 1996-1997. Check all that apply.
>>
>
> I hadn't seen that in a long time. You need to update though to the
> 4.0(rec.aviation) version.
>
> It replaces all of that with.
>
> Shut the **** up, MX.
>
>
>

Bwawhahwhahhwahwh!


Bertie

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Yes - I have a name" > said:
>> I'm sure I've seen wheels on cars that appear to be moving backwards. Are
>my
>> eyes defective?

That's due to something else strobing the light, such as the reflection
off other wheels or off the lugnuts. It's also reported that a steady
vibration of your eyes can cause the effect, such as when humming (or
probably while sitting in a noisy airplane).

>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n8_v17/ai_18471030

The discrete vision theory has been discredited.

Kline K, Holcombe A, Eagleman D (2004). "Illusory motion reversal is
caused by rivalry, not by perceptual snapshots of the visual field.".
Vision Res 44 (23): 2653-8. PMID 15358060.

Kline K, Holcombe A, Eagleman D (2006). "Illusory motion reversal does not
imply discrete processing: Reply to Rojas et al.". Vision Res 46 (6-7):
1158-9. PMID 16199075

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
C is *supposed* to be dangerous, damnit!
-- Anonymous, on "Safer C"

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...

> That's due to something else strobing the light, such as the reflection
> off other wheels or off the lugnuts.

So Anthony's statement IS wrong :

"it never appears to move backwards."

Refer to MX rule #1

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> cavelamb himself wrote:
>
>>STANDARD FLAME POST version 3.432 (c) 1996-1997. Check all that apply.
>>
>
>
> I hadn't seen that in a long time. You need to update though to the
> 4.0(rec.aviation) version.
>
> It replaces all of that with.
>
> Shut the **** up, MX.
>
>

Dude!
That's sweet.

Direct, to the point, and saves considerable bandwidth.

Wish this idiot could do the same.
But Noooooo.... Not this one.

Ah well.


Richard

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Any light that flickers at an appropriate rate will cause the prop to
> > appear to turn in reverse.
> >
> > The likelyhood of being somewhere with lights that flicker is irrelevant.

> It's highly relevant in aviation, where exposure to flickering lights is
> essentially unknown.

A new appearance of Non Sequitur Kid.

> > The original statement was that it ->ONLY<- happens in movies and video, and
> > that absolute statement is false as are most of MX's absolute statements.

> The original assertion was that it was an artifact of human vision, which is
> never true.

The Revisionist appears to pull MX's butt from the fire and fails.

You do know this stuff is archived and it is trivial to show you are
lying?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
> > obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
> > lights that have flicker.

> That is an artifact of the lighting, not of human vision.

Non Sequitur Kid suddenly appears...

> Additionally, natural light (e.g., sunlight) does not flicker.

Captain Obvious puts in yet another appearance.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Yes - I have a name writes:

> > My phonograph turns at either 33-1/3 or 45 RPM, which is just as relevant to
> > this conversation as your mention of turbofans.

> At any given moment there are thousands of aircraft powered by turbofans in
> flight.

The Non Sequitur Kid puts in a surprise appearance.

Yet he fails to state that at any given moment there are thousands of
phonographs in use.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Harry K]

On Dec 3, 7:21 pm, Harry K > wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:45 pm, Just go look it up! > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:52:04 -0800, Airbus > wrote:
> > >In article >, says...
>
> > >>When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
> > >>obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
> > >>lights that have flicker.
>
> > >>--
>
> > >Fine - but which ones cause you to see the propellers turning in
> > >apparent reverse? Do you frequently operate your airplane indoors?
> > >Propellers are usually observed in natural light, which does not flicker. At
> > >night, on the rare occasions where you actually see the props clearly, it is
> > >from the aircraft's own lighting, which is DC. I have nbever seen the props
> > >turning backwards on a real plane - see it frequently in movies though. . .
>
> > Night, near one of those big off-amber ramp lights, run the RPM up and
> > down, there's a range where it will look like it's going backwards. I
> > thought it was kind of interesting.
>
> > It's something similar to the poor-man's "is my RPM somewhat right"
> > test, it'll appear stopped at (I forget what RPM now) RPM and if your
> > tach is somewhat near, viola.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Been a long, long time but my rusty math skills says it would be about
> 3600 unless I am wrong (per wife that is my normal state). That is
> the 1/2 harmonic of the rpm/flicker rate. 60 X 120 = 7200. The
> phenomenon should appear at 1/2, 1/4, double rate etc intervals.
>
> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

After thinking that over...

It gets worse. There will be multiple rpm that will show the effect
under strobe conditions. With a 2 blade prop it can be sychronizing
every 1/2 rev. 3-blade prop every 1/3 or 2/3 rev, etc. in addition to
synching on the harmonics.

Harry K

[Tina]

If any of you have tried to use a strobe light to determine rotational
speed, you'll remember harmonics are a serious problem.

If there's a single mark on a shaft, it will appear stationary if the
flash rate is equal to the time it takes the shaft to turn once. It
will also appear stationary if its rate is half of that time, (it will
blink on the spot every other time) a quarter of that time, and so on.
It gets worse. If the blink rate is twice that of the shaft speed, the
spot will appear stationary, but only half as intense, since one flash
will 'lock' the spot, and the next will illuminate the opposite side
of the shaft at an unmarked place.

To make this relevant to aviation, replace spot with prop blade.


On Dec 4, 11:17 am, Harry K > wrote:
> On Dec 3, 7:21 pm, Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 2:45 pm, Just go look it up! > wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:52:04 -0800, Airbus > wrote:
> > > >In article >, says...
>
> > > >>When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
> > > >>obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
> > > >>lights that have flicker.
>
> > > >>--
>
> > > >Fine - but which ones cause you to see the propellers turning in
> > > >apparent reverse? Do you frequently operate your airplane indoors?
> > > >Propellers are usually observed in natural light, which does not flicker. At
> > > >night, on the rare occasions where you actually see the props clearly, it is
> > > >from the aircraft's own lighting, which is DC. I have nbever seen the props
> > > >turning backwards on a real plane - see it frequently in movies though. . .
>
> > > Night, near one of those big off-amber ramp lights, run the RPM up and
> > > down, there's a range where it will look like it's going backwards. I
> > > thought it was kind of interesting.
>
> > > It's something similar to the poor-man's "is my RPM somewhat right"
> > > test, it'll appear stopped at (I forget what RPM now) RPM and if your
> > > tach is somewhat near, viola.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Been a long, long time but my rusty math skills says it would be about
> > 3600 unless I am wrong (per wife that is my normal state). That is
> > the 1/2 harmonic of the rpm/flicker rate. 60 X 120 = 7200. The
> > phenomenon should appear at 1/2, 1/4, double rate etc intervals.
>
> > Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> After thinking that over...
>
> It gets worse. There will be multiple rpm that will show the effect
> under strobe conditions. With a 2 blade prop it can be sychronizing
> every 1/2 rev. 3-blade prop every 1/3 or 2/3 rev, etc. in addition to
> synching on the harmonics.
>
> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
> On Dec 3, 7:21 pm, Harry K > wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 2:45 pm, Just go look it up! > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:52:04 -0800, Airbus > wrote:
> > > >In article >, says...
> >
> > > >>When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
> > > >>obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
> > > >>lights that have flicker.
> >
> > > >>--
> >
> > > >Fine - but which ones cause you to see the propellers turning in
> > > >apparent reverse? Do you frequently operate your airplane indoors?
> > > >Propellers are usually observed in natural light, which does not flicker. At
> > > >night, on the rare occasions where you actually see the props clearly, it is
> > > >from the aircraft's own lighting, which is DC. I have nbever seen the props
> > > >turning backwards on a real plane - see it frequently in movies though. . .
> >
> > > Night, near one of those big off-amber ramp lights, run the RPM up and
> > > down, there's a range where it will look like it's going backwards. I
> > > thought it was kind of interesting.
> >
> > > It's something similar to the poor-man's "is my RPM somewhat right"
> > > test, it'll appear stopped at (I forget what RPM now) RPM and if your
> > > tach is somewhat near, viola.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Been a long, long time but my rusty math skills says it would be about
> > 3600 unless I am wrong (per wife that is my normal state). That is
> > the 1/2 harmonic of the rpm/flicker rate. 60 X 120 = 7200. The
> > phenomenon should appear at 1/2, 1/4, double rate etc intervals.
> >
> > Harry K- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -

> After thinking that over...

> It gets worse. There will be multiple rpm that will show the effect
> under strobe conditions. With a 2 blade prop it can be sychronizing
> every 1/2 rev. 3-blade prop every 1/3 or 2/3 rev, etc. in addition to
> synching on the harmonics.

It isn't that bad.

Synchronization only occurs on integral fractions and engine RPM is
usually 1000 and about 2700 RPM so the possibilities are limited.

For a 2 bladed prop:

7200/2= 3600 -> 1800 RPM

7200/3= 2400 -> 2400 RPM and 1200 RPM

7200/4= 1800 -> 1800 RPM and 900 RPM

etc.

I leave it to someone else to show how many blades you see at each RPM.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Wrong, exactly backwards wrong. Rutger was correct.

The frame is a painted raster. The image is the complete set of visual data
for simultaneous assimilation.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You do know this stuff is archived ...

That's the best part.

[Mxsmanic]

Yes - I have a name writes:

> I'm sure I've seen wheels on cars that appear to be moving backwards. Are my
> eyes defective?

No, but your memory is imperfect. You've never seen that in real life, only
on TV and in films, or under stroboscopic lighting.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> This phenomenon is apparent to the naked eye under continuous
> lighting conditions.

No, it is not.

> You might need to wait for a three or four blade prop, but
> it DOES happen in real life.

No, it does not. Continual assertions to the contrary will not change this.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Yes - I have a name writes:
>
>> I'm sure I've seen wheels on cars that appear to be moving backwards. Are
>> my
>> eyes defective?
>
> No, but your memory is imperfect. You've never seen that in real life,
> only
> on TV and in films, or under stroboscopic lighting.

No it's because YOU have never seen anything in REAL LIFE retard.

If it hasn't been on a tv or computer screen, you have so little experience
YOU don't realize it exists.

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Yes - I have a name writes:
>
> > I'm sure I've seen wheels on cars that appear to be moving backwards.
Are my
> > eyes defective?
>
> No, but your memory is imperfect. You've never seen that in real life,
only
> on TV and in films, or under stroboscopic lighting.

Translation: I don't understand it, so it can't happen.

Looks like I've been MXed (The absolute denial of common knowledge).

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Yes - I have a name writes:
>
>> I'm sure I've seen wheels on cars that appear to be moving backwards. Are my
>> eyes defective?
>
>No, but your memory is imperfect. You've never seen that in real life, only
>on TV and in films, or under stroboscopic lighting.

Wikipedia references some scientific papers that show three distinct cases
of people seeing it non-strobing (ie natural sunlight).

1. People see the effect on car wheels, mostly because hubcaps have
reflective surfaces that cause a strobing of the light in natural
sunlight, but also because of other things changing the light, like
shadows or the reflection off other objects.

2. People see the effect when their eyes are being vibrated. The article
addresses people seeing it when humming, but I suspect the same effect
could happen with the low frequency noise that permeates an airplane
cockpit.

3. There is some controversy about an effect that *some* people see when
they stare at a moving pattern of dots for periods of time greater than 30
seconds (some needing to stare as long as 10 minutes before they see it).
Some scientists are saying that it shows that our brain processes vision
in discrete frames. Others say it's a totally different effect.

I've never seen it in the air, and I'd never heard of it until I read the
wikipedia article, but it turns out that Maxwell and others are correct
and you're wrong. I guess I should have known.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"My band is called Imation CDR 74m 650 MB...have you seen our CDs?"

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

>
> Shut the **** up, MX.
>
So Say We All!

[Mxsmanic]

Yes - I have a name writes:

> Translation: I don't understand it, so it can't happen.

I've studied it, and I understand why it cannot happen.

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> ... I'd never heard of it until I read the
> wikipedia article ...

What does that tell you about the Wikipedia article.

> ... but it turns out that Maxwell and others are correct
> and you're wrong. I guess I should have known.

Consult multiple sources, and be especially wary of Wikipedia.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
>

STFU, you are clearly just trying to troll now.

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

> Paul Tomblin writes:

> > ... but it turns out that Maxwell and others are correct
> > and you're wrong. I guess I should have known.
>
> Consult multiple sources, and be especially wary of Wikipedia.

You too have been MXed.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Paul Tomblin writes:
>> ... I'd never heard of it until I read the
>> wikipedia article ...
>
>What does that tell you about the Wikipedia article.

It tells me that the people who wrote the Wikipedia article are smarter
than you or me.

>> ... but it turns out that Maxwell and others are correct
>> and you're wrong. I guess I should have known.
>
>Consult multiple sources, and be especially wary of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia quotes multiple scientific papers. So far all you've quoted is
yourself.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began
to suspect 'Hungry' ..."
-- Gary Larson, "The Far Side"

[Beryl[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> The following thread on the Van's Air Force web site was of general enough
> interest that I thought it worthwhile to bring it to the attention of other
> pilots:
>
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24147
>
> Would be quite useful if it really worked. Of course there would still be
> strikes with inattentive and near-sighted birds. ;-)

Entertaining thread this turned into. Anyway, here's a nice illusion.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8067/imagegm1.gif

Concentrate on the + in the middle.
An illusory green dot soon appears.
Moments later, pink dots seem to disappear.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Wrong, exactly backwards wrong. Rutger was correct.
>
> The frame is a painted raster. The image is the complete set of
> visual data for simultaneous assimilation.


Shut the **** up, MX.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You do know this stuff is archived ...
>
> That's the best part.


Shut the **** up, MX.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Yes - I have a name writes:
>
>> I'm sure I've seen wheels on cars that appear to be moving
>> backwards. Are my eyes defective?
>
> No, but your memory is imperfect. You've never seen that in real
> life, only on TV and in films, or under stroboscopic lighting.


Shut the **** up, MX.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Beryl wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> The following thread on the Van's Air Force web site was of general
>> enough interest that I thought it worthwhile to bring it to the
>> attention of other pilots:
>>
>> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24147
>>
>> Would be quite useful if it really worked. Of course there would
>> still be strikes with inattentive and near-sighted birds. ;-)
>
> Entertaining thread this turned into. Anyway, here's a nice illusion.
>
> http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8067/imagegm1.gif
>
> Concentrate on the + in the middle.
> An illusory green dot soon appears.
> Moments later, pink dots seem to disappear.

Hey, I was about to post that.

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> Shut the **** up, MX.
>
>

So Say We All!

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Shut the **** up, MX.
>
>

So Say We All!

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Yes - I have a name wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Shut the **** up, MX.
>>
>>
>
>
> So Say We All!
>
>


So, which way is the naked lady spinning?

http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Beryl wrote:
>
>>Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>>>The following thread on the Van's Air Force web site was of general
>>>enough interest that I thought it worthwhile to bring it to the
>>>attention of other pilots:
>>>
>>>http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=24147
>>>
>>>Would be quite useful if it really worked. Of course there would
>>>still be strikes with inattentive and near-sighted birds. ;-)
>>
>>Entertaining thread this turned into. Anyway, here's a nice illusion.
>>
>>http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8067/imagegm1.gif
>>
>>Concentrate on the + in the middle.
>>An illusory green dot soon appears.
>>Moments later, pink dots seem to disappear.
>
>
> Hey, I was about to post that.
>
>

I'll repost this one here - so it's easier to find?
HEHEHE!

http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:29:29 -0600, "Maxwell" >
wrote:

>
>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> Yes - I have a name writes:
>>
>>> I'm sure I've seen wheels on cars that appear to be moving backwards. Are
>>> my
>>> eyes defective?
>>
>> No, but your memory is imperfect. You've never seen that in real life,
>> only
>> on TV and in films, or under stroboscopic lighting.
>
>No it's because YOU have never seen anything in REAL LIFE retard.
>
>If it hasn't been on a tv or computer screen, you have so little experience
>YOU don't realize it exists.

Wait, I did a KF a while back - did I read this right that now it is
trying to tell people they don't really know what they see?

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Shut the **** up, MX.

Or else what?

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> It tells me that the people who wrote the Wikipedia article are smarter
> than you or me.

Because they agree with what you wish to believe?

I've written a lot of Wikipedia articles myself. Do you believe what I've
written because I put it in Wikipedia?

> Wikipedia quotes multiple scientific papers. So far all you've quoted is
> yourself.

Wikipedia usually quotes, at best, a number of sources, which may or may not
be reliable, be they scientific papers or not.

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> You're out on a limb there. There has been A LOT of testing on birds' vision,
> and they don't necessarily ask your opinion. . .

Which tests have been done?

> Well, I think he made a pretty good "guess" - the GE90-115B tha powers the
> 777 turns (front fan) at 2550RPM, or 42.5 RPS. He probably didn't ahve to
> guess much, as these facts are easily and irrefutably verified.

I obtained the facts from the engine specifications, so no guessing was
required.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

>>> Entertaining thread this turned into. Anyway, here's a nice illusion.
>>>
>>> http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8067/imagegm1.gif
>>>
>>> Concentrate on the + in the middle.
>>> An illusory green dot soon appears.
>>> Moments later, pink dots seem to disappear.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey, I was about to post that.
>>
>
> I'll repost this one here - so it's easier to find?
> HEHEHE!
>
> http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html


I think this one is awesome.
Can these really be the same color???

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/proof.htm#samecolor

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>
>>Shut the **** up, MX.
>
>
> Or else what?

Or else I won't Like You any nore.

[Mxsmanic]

cavelamb himself writes:

> Or else I won't Like You any nore.

I'm not looking for friends. I'm only here to discuss aviation.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> cavelamb himself writes:
>
>
>>Or else I won't Like You any nore.
>
>
> I'm not looking for friends. I'm only here to discuss aviation.


No. I don't think so.

I think you are here to taunt people and be a nusance.

[Jim Logajan]

[Note: nonstandard attribution layout.]
Beryl wrote:
> Entertaining thread this turned into. Anyway, here's a nice illusion.
>
> http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8067/imagegm1.gif
>
> Concentrate on the + in the middle.
> An illusory green dot soon appears.
> Moments later, pink dots seem to disappear.

Very interesting and neat.

cavelamb himself > wrote:
> I'll repost this one here - so it's easier to find?
> HEHEHE!
>
> http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html

It took some doing, but by glancing to one side (and sometimes briefly
closing my eyes and trying to imagine the reverse spin) I was able to
switch the perceived rotation direction. However, I have it on good
authority that I do not have an IQ of anywhere near 160. :-)

A couple times I had a shift in perceived rotation direction without
looking away.

cavelamb himself > wrote:
> I think this one is awesome.
> Can these really be the same color???
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/proof.htm#samecolor

Hard to believe indeed. I decided to do an image copy from the browser and
pasted the copy into the MS Windows Paint program. Copied two square chunks
of each of the two labeled board squares and pasted them side-by-side. Sure
enough they are the same color.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 4, 9:48 pm, Airbus > wrote:

> And the front
>
> >> fan
> >> on a turbofan is turning at around 40-50 revolutions per second, not
> >> thousands.
>
> >Guess again.
>
> Well, I think he made a pretty good "guess" - the GE90-115B tha powers the
> 777 turns (front fan) at 2550RPM, or 42.5 RPS. He probably didn't ahve to
> guess much, as these facts are easily and irrefutably verified. I "guess" you
> haven't learned that. . .

Not too many folks bother to do a little research. It gets
easier all the time, what with Google and all that. Things like fan
speeds are easily available, and with a tiny bit of arithmetic the
rotational speed per second is easily calculated. Some posters just
diss anything someone else says, mostly because they didn't know it
first or perhaps becuase of who is saying it.
There's a well-known phenomenon that can incapacitate pilots. A
propeller spinning so that it cuts through the sun's glare and causes
a stroboscopic effect on the pilot's eyes can result in confusion. A
frequency of less than between 25 and 55 Hz, depending on the
individual, can cause dizziness or nausea. It's called "flicker
vertigo" and the fact that it happens tells me that the human eyeball
(or at least the visual cortex) does have a frequency function of some
sort. 25 Hz on a two-blade prop would be 750 RPM and 55 would be 1650.
Some tests have found that frequencies as low as four to 20 Hz will
induce it rapidly.
See this: http://www.flightsafety.org/hf/hf_mar-apr04.pdf
When I get the prop between the sun and my eyeballs I have to
increase the RPM to get rid of it. It's painful.

Dan

[Tina]

Here's an illusion I can't expain at all.

http://amiedotcom.blogspot.com/2005/12/do-you-see-what-i-see.html


been told it has to do with resolving frequencies in space, not time,
but it's way past my number crunchiing skills.


On Dec 4, 8:47 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> [Note: nonstandard attribution layout.]
>
> Beryl wrote:
> > Entertaining thread this turned into. Anyway, here's a nice illusion.
>
> >http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8067/imagegm1.gif
>
> > Concentrate on the + in the middle.
> > An illusory green dot soon appears.
> > Moments later, pink dots seem to disappear.
>
> Very interesting and neat.
>
> cavelamb himself > wrote:
> > I'll repost this one here - so it's easier to find?
> > HEHEHE!
>
> >http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html
>
> It took some doing, but by glancing to one side (and sometimes briefly
> closing my eyes and trying to imagine the reverse spin) I was able to
> switch the perceived rotation direction. However, I have it on good
> authority that I do not have an IQ of anywhere near 160. :-)
>
> A couple times I had a shift in perceived rotation direction without
> looking away.
>
> cavelamb himself > wrote:
> > I think this one is awesome.
> > Can these really be the same color???
>
> >http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/proof.htm#samecolor
>
> Hard to believe indeed. I decided to do an image copy from the browser and
> pasted the copy into the MS Windows Paint program. Copied two square chunks
> of each of the two labeled board squares and pasted them side-by-side. Sure
> enough they are the same color.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 4, 8:14 pm, Tina > wrote:
> Here's an illusion I can't expain at all.
>
> http://amiedotcom.blogspot.com/2005/12/do-you-see-what-i-see.html
>
> been told it has to do with resolving frequencies in space, not time,
> but it's way past my number crunchiing skills.


Looks to me more like a detail issue, with the resolution
that diminishes with distance causing the illusion.

Dan

[Harry K]

On Dec 4, 9:55 am, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 7:21 pm, Harry K > wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 2:45 pm, Just go look it up! > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:52:04 -0800, Airbus > wrote:
> > > > >In article >, says...
>
> > > > >>When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
> > > > >>obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
> > > > >>lights that have flicker.
>
> > > > >>--
>
> > > > >Fine - but which ones cause you to see the propellers turning in
> > > > >apparent reverse? Do you frequently operate your airplane indoors?
> > > > >Propellers are usually observed in natural light, which does not flicker. At
> > > > >night, on the rare occasions where you actually see the props clearly, it is
> > > > >from the aircraft's own lighting, which is DC. I have nbever seen the props
> > > > >turning backwards on a real plane - see it frequently in movies though. . .
>
> > > > Night, near one of those big off-amber ramp lights, run the RPM up and
> > > > down, there's a range where it will look like it's going backwards. I
> > > > thought it was kind of interesting.
>
> > > > It's something similar to the poor-man's "is my RPM somewhat right"
> > > > test, it'll appear stopped at (I forget what RPM now) RPM and if your
> > > > tach is somewhat near, viola.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Been a long, long time but my rusty math skills says it would be about
> > > 3600 unless I am wrong (per wife that is my normal state). That is
> > > the 1/2 harmonic of the rpm/flicker rate. 60 X 120 = 7200. The
> > > phenomenon should appear at 1/2, 1/4, double rate etc intervals.
>
> > > Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > After thinking that over...
> > It gets worse. There will be multiple rpm that will show the effect
> > under strobe conditions. With a 2 blade prop it can be sychronizing
> > every 1/2 rev. 3-blade prop every 1/3 or 2/3 rev, etc. in addition to
> > synching on the harmonics.
>
> It isn't that bad.
>
> Synchronization only occurs on integral fractions and engine RPM is
> usually 1000 and about 2700 RPM so the possibilities are limited.
>
> For a 2 bladed prop:
>
> 7200/2= 3600 -> 1800 RPM
>
> 7200/3= 2400 -> 2400 RPM and 1200 RPM
>
> 7200/4= 1800 -> 1800 RPM and 900 RPM
>
> etc.
>
> I leave it to someone else to show how many blades you see at each RPM.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Since the prop appears stationary, you would see all the blades.

Harry K

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> On Dec 4, 8:14 pm, Tina > wrote:
>> Here's an illusion I can't expain at all.
>>
>> http://amiedotcom.blogspot.com/2005/12/do-you-see-what-i-see.html
>>
>> been told it has to do with resolving frequencies in space, not time,
>> but it's way past my number crunchiing skills.
>
>
> Looks to me more like a detail issue, with the resolution
> that diminishes with distance causing the illusion.

Could be. Or the optic nerve does something equivalent to a two-dimensional
Fourier transform on images and filters the high frequency components out.
(I believe many lossy image compression algorithms use an equivalent
technique. E.g. JPEG.)

[Tina]

Nice call, I can understand that now.


Thanks


On Dec 4, 10:20 pm, wrote:
> On Dec 4, 8:14 pm, Tina > wrote:
>
> > Here's an illusion I can't expain at all.
>
> >http://amiedotcom.blogspot.com/2005/12/do-you-see-what-i-see.html
>
> > been told it has to do with resolving frequencies in space, not time,
> > but it's way past my number crunchiing skills.
>
> Looks to me more like a detail issue, with the resolution
> that diminishes with distance causing the illusion.
>
> Dan

[Harry K]

On Dec 4, 5:47 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> [Note: nonstandard attribution layout.]
>
> Beryl wrote:
> > Entertaining thread this turned into. Anyway, here's a nice illusion.
>
> >http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8067/imagegm1.gif
>
> > Concentrate on the + in the middle.
> > An illusory green dot soon appears.
> > Moments later, pink dots seem to disappear.
>
> Very interesting and neat.
>
> cavelamb himself > wrote:
> > I'll repost this one here - so it's easier to find?
> > HEHEHE!
>
> >http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html
>
> It took some doing, but by glancing to one side (and sometimes briefly
> closing my eyes and trying to imagine the reverse spin) I was able to
> switch the perceived rotation direction. However, I have it on good
> authority that I do not have an IQ of anywhere near 160. :-)
>
> A couple times I had a shift in perceived rotation direction without
> looking away.
>
> cavelamb himself > wrote:
> > I think this one is awesome.
> > Can these really be the same color???
>
> >http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/proof.htm#samecolor
>
> Hard to believe indeed. I decided to do an image copy from the browser and
> pasted the copy into the MS Windows Paint program. Copied two square chunks
> of each of the two labeled board squares and pasted them side-by-side. Sure
> enough they are the same color.

I was curious if one-eyed people see the spin. Yep. My wife is, and
I am 1/2 vision in one. Of course a simple experiment by closing one
eye (either of mine) and it still rotates. I can see it either
direction, blinking usually changes it.

Back in the 60s I was at a remote site co-located with a radar site.
It had one big antenna formed from open meshwork. I could not tell
which direction it was rotating even though I _knew_ it was clockwise.

Harry K

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
cavelamb himself > wrote:

> >>> Entertaining thread this turned into. Anyway, here's a nice illusion.
> >>>
> >>> http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8067/imagegm1.gif
> >>>
> >>> Concentrate on the + in the middle.
> >>> An illusory green dot soon appears.
> >>> Moments later, pink dots seem to disappear.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hey, I was about to post that.
> >>
> >
> > I'll repost this one here - so it's easier to find?
> > HEHEHE!
> >
> > http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html
>
>
> I think this one is awesome.
> Can these really be the same color???
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/proof.htm#samecolor

Yes, they really can and really are the same colour..

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
> On Dec 4, 9:55 am, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 7:21 pm, Harry K > wrote:
> > > > On Dec 3, 2:45 pm, Just go look it up! > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:52:04 -0800, Airbus > wrote:
> > > > > >In article >, says...
> >
> > > > > >>When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
> > > > > >>obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
> > > > > >>lights that have flicker.
> >
> > > > > >>--
> >
> > > > > >Fine - but which ones cause you to see the propellers turning in
> > > > > >apparent reverse? Do you frequently operate your airplane indoors?
> > > > > >Propellers are usually observed in natural light, which does not flicker. At
> > > > > >night, on the rare occasions where you actually see the props clearly, it is
> > > > > >from the aircraft's own lighting, which is DC. I have nbever seen the props
> > > > > >turning backwards on a real plane - see it frequently in movies though. . .
> >
> > > > > Night, near one of those big off-amber ramp lights, run the RPM up and
> > > > > down, there's a range where it will look like it's going backwards. I
> > > > > thought it was kind of interesting.
> >
> > > > > It's something similar to the poor-man's "is my RPM somewhat right"
> > > > > test, it'll appear stopped at (I forget what RPM now) RPM and if your
> > > > > tach is somewhat near, viola.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > Been a long, long time but my rusty math skills says it would be about
> > > > 3600 unless I am wrong (per wife that is my normal state). That is
> > > > the 1/2 harmonic of the rpm/flicker rate. 60 X 120 = 7200. The
> > > > phenomenon should appear at 1/2, 1/4, double rate etc intervals.
> >
> > > > Harry K- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > After thinking that over...
> > > It gets worse. There will be multiple rpm that will show the effect
> > > under strobe conditions. With a 2 blade prop it can be sychronizing
> > > every 1/2 rev. 3-blade prop every 1/3 or 2/3 rev, etc. in addition to
> > > synching on the harmonics.
> >
> > It isn't that bad.
> >
> > Synchronization only occurs on integral fractions and engine RPM is
> > usually 1000 and about 2700 RPM so the possibilities are limited.
> >
> > For a 2 bladed prop:
> >
> > 7200/2= 3600 -> 1800 RPM
> >
> > 7200/3= 2400 -> 2400 RPM and 1200 RPM
> >
> > 7200/4= 1800 -> 1800 RPM and 900 RPM
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > I leave it to someone else to show how many blades you see at each RPM.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino

> Since the prop appears stationary, you would see all the blades.

Yes, but how many virtual blades will you see?

Simple example: You are illuminating a 2 bladed prop running at 1000 RPM
with a strobe light pulsing at 4000 pulses per minute.

In the time between pulses, the prop makes 1/4 of a turn.

The prop is therefor lite up every 1/4 turn and it appears as though
the prop has 4 blades.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Airbus]

In article >, says...
>
>
>
>"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>
>>>
>>>When observed directly under artifical light that "flickers", the most
>>>obvious being a strobe light, but there are other types of artificial
>>>lights that have flicker.
>>>
>>>--
>>
>>
>> Fine - but which ones cause you to see the propellers turning in
>> apparent reverse? Do you frequently operate your airplane indoors?
>> Propellers are usually observed in natural light, which does not flicker.
>> At
>> night, on the rare occasions where you actually see the props clearly, it
>> is
>> from the aircraft's own lighting, which is DC. I have nbever seen the
>> props
>> turning backwards on a real plane - see it frequently in movies though.
>> . .
>>
>
>Do you really think you see and visualize motion constantly. Perhaps you
>should spend a little more time around and airport yourself. Many
>propellers, especially the large diameter props found on radial engines,
>will appear at times to be rotating slower, or backwards. It's a fainter
>image than recorded on film, but the partnership of the human eye and brain
>does not realize fluid motion.


Well, I must admit I don't have much experience with large radial engines.
Moreover, I accept the argument that some AC ramp lighting at night can produce
stroboscopic effects with props - I have not seen it myself, even though I
frequently fly at night, but I do accept the principle - if you get your plane
in the right position with respect to line-frequency, AC lighting at night you
should see stroboscopic effects, which will include "backwards turning"
illusdion, depending on your prop speed. So I stand corrected on this.

[Airbus]

In article >, says...
>
>
>
>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> Roger (K8RI) writes:
>>
>>> At cruise RPM that effect would be completely lost. There's not a
>>> bird or human alive that can discern stroboscopic effects of more than
>>> a couple hundred cycles let alone over a 1000. Most of us can't even
>>> discern 60 cps.
>>
>> Birds have much better vision than human beings,


Demonstrably true.



and I don't believe
>> anyone
>> has tested their ability to discern stroboscopic effects.


You're out on a limb there. There has been A LOT of testing on birds' vision,
and they don't necessarily ask your opinion. . .



And the front
>> fan
>> on a turbofan is turning at around 40-50 revolutions per second, not
>> thousands.


>
>Guess again.


Well, I think he made a pretty good "guess" - the GE90-115B tha powers the
777 turns (front fan) at 2550RPM, or 42.5 RPS. He probably didn't ahve to
guess much, as these facts are easily and irrefutably verified. I "guess" you
haven't learned that. . .
>
>

[Maxwell]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:29:29 -0600, "Maxwell" >
>>
>>If it hasn't been on a tv or computer screen, you have so little
>>experience
>>YOU don't realize it exists.
>
> Wait, I did a KF a while back - did I read this right that now it is
> trying to tell people they don't really know what they see?

Yep, that's just about the size of it.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> It tells me that the people who wrote the Wikipedia article are smarter
>> than you or me.
>
> Because they agree with what you wish to believe?
>
> I've written a lot of Wikipedia articles myself. Do you believe what I've
> written because I put it in Wikipedia?
>
>> Wikipedia quotes multiple scientific papers. So far all you've quoted is
>> yourself.
>
> Wikipedia usually quotes, at best, a number of sources, which may or may
> not
> be reliable, be they scientific papers or not.

But you are still a much more unreliable source than Wiki.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-12-05, Airbus > wrote:
> Well, I must admit I don't have much experience with large radial engines.
> Moreover, I accept the argument that some AC ramp lighting at night can produce
> stroboscopic effects with props - I have not seen it myself, even though I
> frequently fly at night, but I do accept the principle - if you get your plane
> in the right position with respect to line-frequency, AC lighting at night you
> should see stroboscopic effects, which will include "backwards turning"
> illusdion, depending on your prop speed. So I stand corrected on this.

I've seen it plenty of times.

Not caused by lighting, but you can see the strobing effect in this
video I shot, caused by the frame rate of the video camera (note, the
strobing is at 50Hz since the source video is PAL):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf5unfWZLDA

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> This phenomenon is apparent to the naked eye under continuous
>> lighting conditions.
>
> No, it is not.
>
>> You might need to wait for a three or four blade prop, but
>> it DOES happen in real life.
>
> No, it does not. Continual assertions to the contrary will not change
> this.
>

Yes, they will


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> cavelamb himself writes:
>
>> Or else I won't Like You any nore.
>
> I'm not looking for friends.

Obviously.


I'm only here to discuss aviation.
>


No you aren't


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Yes - I have a name writes:
>
>> I'm sure I've seen wheels on cars that appear to be moving backwards.
>> Are my eyes defective?
>
> No, but your memory is imperfect. You've never seen that in real
> life, only on TV and in films, or under stroboscopic lighting.
>














wrong again, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> It tells me that the people who wrote the Wikipedia article are
>> smarter than you or me.
>
> Because they agree with what you wish to believe?
>
> I've written a lot of Wikipedia articles myself.


Well, there's Wickepedia's rep completely shot now.


Do you believe what
> I've written because I put it in Wikipedia?


Nope.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

cavelamb himself > wrote in news:13lbscv7ajlv9c8
@corp.supernews.com:

> Yes - I have a name wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>>Shut the **** up, MX.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> So Say We All!
>>
>>
>
>
> So, which way is the naked lady spinning?
>
> http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html
>

Nice figure. got her phone #?


BTW, depending on the scale used, about 140 or over is genius level,
depending on your definition, of course


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> You're out on a limb there. There has been A LOT of testing on birds'
>> vision, and they don't necessarily ask your opinion. . .
>
> Which tests have been done?


What;s it matter to you?

You don;'t fly.


>
>> Well, I think he made a pretty good "guess" - the GE90-115B tha
>> powers the 777 turns (front fan) at 2550RPM, or 42.5 RPS. He probably
>> didn't ahve to guess much, as these facts are easily and irrefutably
>> verified.
>
> I obtained the facts from the engine specifications, so no guessing
> was required.
>


But you have no idea what any of that means, do you?

Bertie

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Yes - I have a name wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>>Shut the **** up, MX.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> So Say We All!
>>
>>
>
>
>So, which way is the naked lady spinning?
>
>http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html


Some kind of joke?
I easily see it spinning either way - I'll bet a lot of people do.
Sort of like reversing an isometric cube with your eyes.
Can't be as hard as they say. . .

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Airbus writes:
>
>> You're out on a limb there. There has been A LOT of testing on birds'
vision,
>> and they don't necessarily ask your opinion. . .
>
>Which tests have been done?

Forget it dude - I'm not like you - will not make categorical statements
about subjects I know nothing about. I do not pretend, like you, to know what
studies may have been done. You seem to feel that somùething you do not know
(which you must admit encompasses the near totality of subjects) cannot exist.



>
>> Well, I think he made a pretty good "guess" - the GE90-115B tha powers the
>> 777 turns (front fan) at 2550RPM, or 42.5 RPS. He probably didn't ahve to
>> guess much, as these facts are easily and irrefutably verified.
>
>I obtained the facts from the engine specifications, so no guessing was
>required.


I'm so impressed.
It's not the mathematical genius (dividing an RPM number by 60) that impresses
me so much - the real genius is that this guy understood WHY he had to divide
by 60 (to convert minutes to seconds). Subtle - I'm sure few will have the
intellectual presence to grasp it!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

cavelamb himself wrote:

>
>
> So, which way is the naked lady spinning?
>
> http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html


I called it up and saw her rotating CCW for about a minute even after
bleinking and looking around the room and then back at the pic she was still
CCW.

Then I looked up and book marked the page and and then sent a link to my
wife and when I looked back she was CW. And just now I popped back over and
she is still CW.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> cavelamb himself writes:
>
>> Or else I won't Like You any nore.
>
> I'm not looking for friends. I'm only here to discuss aviation.

Bull****. You are hear to argue about aviation discussions and I understand
completly why you do it. It is because you have some psycological need to
argue and if you did it the way you do here you would get your ass beat.

[Tina]

There are many real life environments where you might see stroboscopic
effects without there being a flashing lamp. The optical 'opposite'
like when you've seen wheels seem to move backwards is if your line of
sight can be mechanically inturrupted somehow, or even systematiclly
vibrated or jarred. Coming up on a truck, for example, if your view of
the front wheel is influenced by the lug nuts on an aft wheel, can
offer that impression.

A badly out of balance wheel on your car, moving your head at the
right frequency, can do the same thing.

There are probably other circumstances as well, but I can't at the
moment think of one where steady state viewing of a rotating wheel or
the like without something like a pseudo shutter influencing your
vision would cause it.

So no, your vision is not defective. Or more correctly, it may be
defective, but not because of what you've noted in your post!

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Paul Tomblin writes:
>> Wikipedia quotes multiple scientific papers. So far all you've quoted is
>> yourself.
>
>Wikipedia usually quotes, at best, a number of sources, which may or may not
>be reliable, be they scientific papers or not.

Ok, I'll rephrase that so even you can understand it: "This particular
Wikipedia article quotes multiple scientific papers, all of which prove
that you're talking out your ass. So far, all you've offered in rebuttal
is your own proven track record of being wrong about everything to do with
everything, and your own failed and pathetic life."

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
I tried staying in during a fire alarm some years ago. Unfortunately the
fire warden wouldn't accept 'A real hacker goes down with his newsfeed'
as an excuse. -- Peter Gutman

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> cavelamb himself wrote:
>
>
>>
>>So, which way is the naked lady spinning?
>>
>>http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html
>
>
>
> I called it up and saw her rotating CCW for about a minute even after
> bleinking and looking around the room and then back at the pic she was still
> CCW.
>
> Then I looked up and book marked the page and and then sent a link to my
> wife and when I looked back she was CW. And just now I popped back over and
> she is still CW.
>
>


HaHa!

I can make her do the "Twist", but it makes my eyes hurt...

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Mx the Eunuch" > wrote in message
...
> Yes - I have a name writes:
>
> > I'm sure I've seen wheels on cars that appear to be moving backwards.
Are my
> > eyes defective?
>
> No, but your memory is imperfect. You've never seen that in real life,
only
> on TV and in films, or under stroboscopic lighting.

I saw it again today driving to work.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote

> I called it up and saw her rotating CCW for about a minute even after
> bleinking and looking around the room and then back at the pic she was
> still CCW.
>
> Then I looked up and book marked the page and and then sent a link to my
> wife and when I looked back she was CW. And just now I popped back over
> and she is still CW.

I looked at first and saw CCW and after a while, I looked at the foot and
saw CW and scan upwards and still see CW... But if I look away and back at
the top, I see CCW again.
--
Jim in NC

[Maxwell]

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
...
>
> So, which way is the naked lady spinning?
>
> http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html

Interesting. I kept seeing her CW, and tried it several times, and was truly
beginning to wonder. But then suddenly she switched. At first it seemed to
be a function of time with me, but then I tried an experiment base on the
angry face example. I put my thumb up half way between the screen and my
eye, and had much better luck switching her back and forth. Seems depth of
field or focal point seems to have a big effect with me. See if it works for
you.

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:

>> I'm not looking for friends. I'm only here to discuss aviation.
>
> Bull****. You are hear to argue about aviation discussions and I
> understand completly why you do it. It is because you have some
> psycological need to argue and if you did it the way you do here you
> would get your ass beat.

So whats that make you?














Besides being a bad speller...

[Harry K]

On Dec 4, 8:25 pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
>
>

<snip>

> > > > > Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > After thinking that over...
> > > > It gets worse. There will be multiple rpm that will show the effect
> > > > under strobe conditions. With a 2 blade prop it can be sychronizing
> > > > every 1/2 rev. 3-blade prop every 1/3 or 2/3 rev, etc. in addition to
> > > > synching on the harmonics.
>
> > > It isn't that bad.
>
> > > Synchronization only occurs on integral fractions and engine RPM is
> > > usually 1000 and about 2700 RPM so the possibilities are limited.
>
> > > For a 2 bladed prop:
>
> > > 7200/2= 3600 -> 1800 RPM
>
> > > 7200/3= 2400 -> 2400 RPM and 1200 RPM
>
> > > 7200/4= 1800 -> 1800 RPM and 900 RPM
>
> > > etc.
>
> > > I leave it to someone else to show how many blades you see at each RPM.
>
> > > --
> > > Jim Pennino
> > Since the prop appears stationary, you would see all the blades.
>
> Yes, but how many virtual blades will you see?
>
> Simple example: You are illuminating a 2 bladed prop running at 1000 RPM
> with a strobe light pulsing at 4000 pulses per minute.
>
> In the time between pulses, the prop makes 1/4 of a turn.
>
> The prop is therefor lite up every 1/4 turn and it appears as though
> the prop has 4 blades.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nope. The prop appears stationary and you see only the two.

What you see is the complete image (frame), not a composite of 4
'frames'.

Harry K

[dgs[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I'm only here to discuss aviation.

You are not, you lying vermin. You have posted dozens of messages in
aviation-related newsgroups that have nothing to do with discussing
aviation. You're a tedious, useless, off-topic troll.

Now shut the hell up, loser-boi.
--
dgs

[Gig 601XL Builder]

cavelamb himself wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> cavelamb himself wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So, which way is the naked lady spinning?
>>>
>>> http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html
>>
>>
>>
>> I called it up and saw her rotating CCW for about a minute even after
>> bleinking and looking around the room and then back at the pic she
>> was still CCW.
>>
>> Then I looked up and book marked the page and and then sent a link
>> to my wife and when I looked back she was CW. And just now I popped
>> back over and she is still CW.
>>
>>
>
>
> HaHa!
>
> I can make her do the "Twist", but it makes my eyes hurt...

So can my wife and while I love her dearly she does not have a 160 IQ and
she would be the first to admit it. Hell, she married me that pretty much
will keep her out of Mensa alone.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>> I'm not looking for friends. I'm only here to discuss aviation.
>>
>> Bull****. You are hear to argue about aviation discussions and I
>> understand completly why you do it. It is because you have some
>> psycological need to argue and if you did it the way you do here you
>> would get your ass beat.
>
> So whats that make you?
>

Someone that is getting tired of his constant crap ruining a perfectly good
forum.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Besides being a bad speller...

No, bad typist who counts on spell check to catch stuff and I tend to forget
that unless I hit the spell check button it doesn't work on this program.

[Mxsmanic]

Harry K writes:

> Nope. The prop appears stationary and you see only the two.
>
> What you see is the complete image (frame), not a composite of 4
> 'frames'.

You are both incorrect.

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> Forget it dude - I'm not like you - will not make categorical statements
> about subjects I know nothing about.

Then why are you making categorical statements about me?

> I'm so impressed.

Why? Anyone can look up the specs, even though many people are too lazy to do
so.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Harry K writes:
>
>> Nope. The prop appears stationary and you see only the two.
>>
>> What you see is the complete image (frame), not a composite of 4
>> 'frames'.
>
> You are both incorrect.
>




Nope.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> There's a well-known phenomenon that can incapacitate pilots. A
> propeller spinning so that it cuts through the sun's glare and causes
> a stroboscopic effect on the pilot's eyes can result in confusion. A
> frequency of less than between 25 and 55 Hz, depending on the
> individual, can cause dizziness or nausea. It's called "flicker
> vertigo" and the fact that it happens tells me that the human eyeball
> (or at least the visual cortex) does have a frequency function of some
> sort. 25 Hz on a two-blade prop would be 750 RPM and 55 would be 1650.
> Some tests have found that frequencies as low as four to 20 Hz will
> induce it rapidly.

It is probably more a consequence of intermittent photic stimulation, the same
phenomenon that can trigger seizures in susceptible individuals. As I recall,
the bulk of the response is outside the visual cortex.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Looks to me more like a detail issue, with the resolution
> that diminishes with distance causing the illusion.

Each image actually contains two images, one that is simply blurred, and one
that is a line image with heavy unsharp masking. At close range, the fine
lines of the unsharp-masked image are visible, and the image built that way is
more prominent. At a distance, the adjacent bright and dark of the
unsharp-masked lines blends into a constant gray, and the contours of the
blurred image become more prominent.

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote:

>> So whats that make you?
>
> Someone that is getting tired of his constant crap ruining a perfectly
> good forum.

His "cr@p" is one message, the flood of replies is what ruins "a perfectly
good forum"...

Killfiling or simply learning to ignore, I suppose is too much to ask...

"Mx" might as well be Zoom or Fetters, since he's proven apt at jerking
y'alls chain here...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> Forget it dude - I'm not like you - will not make categorical
>> statements about subjects I know nothing about.
>
> Then why are you making categorical statements about me?


Becasue you're categoricaly idiotic?

>
>> I'm so impressed.
>
> Why? Anyone can look up the specs, even though many people are too
> lazy to do so.
>

But not you!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> There's a well-known phenomenon that can incapacitate pilots. A
>> propeller spinning so that it cuts through the sun's glare and causes
>> a stroboscopic effect on the pilot's eyes can result in confusion. A
>> frequency of less than between 25 and 55 Hz, depending on the
>> individual, can cause dizziness or nausea. It's called "flicker
>> vertigo" and the fact that it happens tells me that the human eyeball
>> (or at least the visual cortex) does have a frequency function of
>> some sort. 25 Hz on a two-blade prop would be 750 RPM and 55 would be
>> 1650. Some tests have found that frequencies as low as four to 20 Hz
>> will induce it rapidly.
>
> It is probably more a consequence of intermittent photic stimulation,


What, like the little sparks in your brain that make yu want to stay
indoors al da time?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Looks to me more like a detail issue, with the resolution
>> that diminishes with distance causing the illusion.
>
> Each image actually contains two images, one that is simply blurred,
> and one that is a line image with heavy unsharp masking. At close
> range, the fine lines of the unsharp-masked image are visible, and the
> image built that way is more prominent. At a distance, the adjacent
> bright and dark of the unsharp-masked lines blends into a constant
> gray, and the contours of the blurred image become more prominent.
>

Uncanny


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Darrel Toepfer > wrote in
. 18:

> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote:
>
>>> So whats that make you?
>>
>> Someone that is getting tired of his constant crap ruining a
>> perfectly good forum.
>
> His "cr@p" is one message, the flood of replies is what ruins "a
> perfectly good forum"...
>
> Killfiling or simply learning to ignore, I suppose is too much to
> ask...
>
> "Mx" might as well be Zoom or Fetters, since he's proven apt at
> jerking y'alls chain here...
>

Well, he's no zoom. After all, the police haven't been involved yet.
OTOH, it's early days yet.


Bertie

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .

>
> Well, he's no zoom. After all, the police haven't been involved yet.
> OTOH, it's early days yet.
>
>
> Bertie

If wouldn't surprise me to find out that the self-proclaimed eunich is
actually a pedophile posting from prison.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Yes - I have a name" > wrote in news:UxC5j.5446
$QS.4553@trndny03:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>
>> Well, he's no zoom. After all, the police haven't been involved yet.
>> OTOH, it's early days yet.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> If wouldn't surprise me to find out that the self-proclaimed eunich is
> actually a pedophile posting from prison.



I'm thinkin more Comic book guy.

Bertie

[dgs[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Then why are you making categorical statements about me?

Who cares? You posted this statement: "I'm only here to discuss
aviation."

Why are you discussing yourself instead of aviation? Why do you
lie so much?
--
dgs

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
. 18...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>> I'm not looking for friends. I'm only here to discuss aviation.
>>
>> Bull****. You are hear to argue about aviation discussions and I
>> understand completly why you do it. It is because you have some
>> psycological need to argue and if you did it the way you do here you
>> would get your ass beat.
>
> So whats that make you?
>
>
> Besides being a bad speller...

"What's", Darrel...

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote

> Someone that is getting tired of his constant crap ruining a perfectly
> good forum.

The ONLY thing that will get rid of him is totally ignoring him.

Kill file him, and chide everyone else to do the same.
--
Jim in NC

[dgs[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I'm not looking for friends.

You're not capable of making them anyway, loser-boi.
--
dgs

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Morgans wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote
>
>> Someone that is getting tired of his constant crap ruining a
>> perfectly good forum.
>
> The ONLY thing that will get rid of him is totally ignoring him.
>
> Kill file him, and chide everyone else to do the same.

I tried it. I kept adding things to the killfile that would make messages
and threads that he posted not show up. Then one morning I went to check the
group and while I was showing 50 something messages not a single one
displayed because they were all caught in the Kill Mx filter in one way or
another.

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:

> "What's", Darrel...

Puncuation, Matt...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> Morgans wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote
>>
>>> Someone that is getting tired of his constant crap ruining a
>>> perfectly good forum.
>>
>> The ONLY thing that will get rid of him is totally ignoring him.
>>
>> Kill file him, and chide everyone else to do the same.
>
> I tried it. I kept adding things to the killfile that would make
> messages and threads that he posted not show up. Then one morning I
> went to check the group and while I was showing 50 something messages
> not a single one displayed because they were all caught in the Kill Mx
> filter in one way or another.
>

I'm considering doing the same thing for the lawyers thread..


Bertie
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

dgs writes:

> Who cares? You posted this statement: "I'm only here to discuss
> aviation."
>
> Why are you discussing yourself instead of aviation?

Because most recent posts in this thread--including yours--persist in
discussing me, instead of the topic at hand.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> dgs writes:
>
>> Who cares? You posted this statement: "I'm only here to discuss
>> aviation."
>>
>> Why are you discussing yourself instead of aviation?
>
> Because most recent posts in this thread--including yours--persist in
> discussing me, instead of the topic at hand.
>

But you *are* the reason we're all here!


You're certainly reason I'm here..


Bertie

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
> On Dec 4, 8:25 pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
> >
> >

> <snip>

> > > > > > Harry K- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > After thinking that over...
> > > > > It gets worse. There will be multiple rpm that will show the effect
> > > > > under strobe conditions. With a 2 blade prop it can be sychronizing
> > > > > every 1/2 rev. 3-blade prop every 1/3 or 2/3 rev, etc. in addition to
> > > > > synching on the harmonics.
> >
> > > > It isn't that bad.
> >
> > > > Synchronization only occurs on integral fractions and engine RPM is
> > > > usually 1000 and about 2700 RPM so the possibilities are limited.
> >
> > > > For a 2 bladed prop:
> >
> > > > 7200/2= 3600 -> 1800 RPM
> >
> > > > 7200/3= 2400 -> 2400 RPM and 1200 RPM
> >
> > > > 7200/4= 1800 -> 1800 RPM and 900 RPM
> >
> > > > etc.
> >
> > > > I leave it to someone else to show how many blades you see at each RPM.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Jim Pennino
> > > Since the prop appears stationary, you would see all the blades.
> >
> > Yes, but how many virtual blades will you see?
> >
> > Simple example: You are illuminating a 2 bladed prop running at 1000 RPM
> > with a strobe light pulsing at 4000 pulses per minute.
> >
> > In the time between pulses, the prop makes 1/4 of a turn.
> >
> > The prop is therefor lite up every 1/4 turn and it appears as though
> > the prop has 4 blades.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -

> Nope. The prop appears stationary and you see only the two.

> What you see is the complete image (frame), not a composite of 4
> 'frames'.

I'm talking about eyeballs and strobed light here, there are no "images"
or "frames" involved.

What you see is a prop blade in whatever position it is in when
the light goes off.

If the light is going off every quarter turn, you see a particular
blade end in four different places each a quarter turn apart.

If the light is going off every sixth of a turn, you see a particular
blade end in six different places each a sixth of a turn apart.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> So can my wife and while I love her dearly she does not have a 160 IQ and
> she would be the first to admit it. Hell, she married me that pretty much
> will keep her out of Mensa alone.

I read that but can't buy it. How could perception of a single moving image
even begin to suggest such a thing? Higher IQ numbers perhaps, but not that
high.

Did any of you golfers check out the link below on the Amazing Kyle
Lograsso. A one eyed 4 year old that has a swing that is the mirror image of
Tiger Wood, drives 172 yards, and has shot as low a 41 on 9 holes!
Incredible.

http://www.sonnyradio.com/kylelograsso.html

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Maxwell wrote:

> Did any of you golfers check out the link below on the Amazing Kyle
> Lograsso. A one eyed 4 year old that has a swing that is the mirror
> image of Tiger Wood, drives 172 yards, and has shot as low a 41 on 9
> holes! Incredible.
>
> http://www.sonnyradio.com/kylelograsso.html

I saw that and all I could think of was, "Damn, if that is my kid I am going
to be so nice to him because he is going to one rich little son of a bitch."

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Morgans" > said:
>"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote
>> Someone that is getting tired of his constant crap ruining a perfectly
>> good forum.
>
> The ONLY thing that will get rid of him is totally ignoring him.

The danger of that is that his blatant misconceptions could get somebody
killed if not challenged.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
....life suddenly made much more sense, the day I fully grokked that people
are stupid.
-- Frank Sweetser

[dgs[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> dgs writes:
>
>
>>Who cares? You posted this statement: "I'm only here to discuss
>>aviation."
>>
>>Why are you discussing yourself instead of aviation?
>
>
> Because most recent posts in this thread--including yours--persist in
> discussing me, instead of the topic at hand.

So, you lied. You aren't only here to discuss aviation. You obviously
can't simply ignore posts discussing yourself. You continue to lie.

Seek help, Anthony. You're seriously damaged, you lying hypocrite.
--
dgs

[Darrel Toepfer]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> The danger of that is that his blatant misconceptions could get somebody
> killed if not challenged.

The upside is that the Darwin Award list, always needs new material...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Darrel Toepfer > wrote in
. 18:

> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
>> The danger of that is that his blatant misconceptions could get somebody
>> killed if not challenged.
>
> The upside is that the Darwin Award list, always needs new material...
>

But "guy dies of deep vein thrombosis while playing MSFS" is never going to
compete with the rocket car story.


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote
>
> The danger of that is that his blatant misconceptions could get somebody
> killed if not challenged.

A boilerplate response such as what Mortimer was doing would take care of
that.

Besides, I think the chances of anyone showing up and not catching on to
what is happening is pretty slim. He is so far off base as to be
ridiculous. Plus, most of what he responds to is off topic, anyway, so no
danger there.

I'll do the boilerplate statement, if everyone would quit their MXed habit.
Anything, to make it all stop.
--
Jim in NC

[Harry K]

On Dec 5, 2:05 pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 8:25 pm, wrote:
> > > In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > > > > > > Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > > After thinking that over...
> > > > > > It gets worse. There will be multiple rpm that will show the effect
> > > > > > under strobe conditions. With a 2 blade prop it can be sychronizing
> > > > > > every 1/2 rev. 3-blade prop every 1/3 or 2/3 rev, etc. in addition to
> > > > > > synching on the harmonics.
>
> > > > > It isn't that bad.
>
> > > > > Synchronization only occurs on integral fractions and engine RPM is
> > > > > usually 1000 and about 2700 RPM so the possibilities are limited.
>
> > > > > For a 2 bladed prop:
>
> > > > > 7200/2= 3600 -> 1800 RPM
>
> > > > > 7200/3= 2400 -> 2400 RPM and 1200 RPM
>
> > > > > 7200/4= 1800 -> 1800 RPM and 900 RPM
>
> > > > > etc.
>
> > > > > I leave it to someone else to show how many blades you see at each RPM.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jim Pennino
> > > > Since the prop appears stationary, you would see all the blades.
>
> > > Yes, but how many virtual blades will you see?
>
> > > Simple example: You are illuminating a 2 bladed prop running at 1000 RPM
> > > with a strobe light pulsing at 4000 pulses per minute.
>
> > > In the time between pulses, the prop makes 1/4 of a turn.
>
> > > The prop is therefor lite up every 1/4 turn and it appears as though
> > > the prop has 4 blades.
>
> > > --
> > > Jim Pennino
>
> > > Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > Nope. The prop appears stationary and you see only the two.
> > What you see is the complete image (frame), not a composite of 4
> > 'frames'.
>
> I'm talking about eyeballs and strobed light here, there are no "images"
> or "frames" involved.
>
> What you see is a prop blade in whatever position it is in when
> the light goes off.
>
> If the light is going off every quarter turn, you see a particular
> blade end in four different places each a quarter turn apart.
>
> If the light is going off every sixth of a turn, you see a particular
> blade end in six different places each a sixth of a turn apart.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, but you will see them (along with all the others) one at a time.
Not the entire sequence at once or even a composite. It is the same
as taking a snap shot with shutter speed fast enough to stop the
motion, it will show all blades, in this case it will show two blades
and no 'virtual' blades. You can prove it with a fan and a variable
strobe light but I suspect that will not be a common kitchen
appliance :).

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Dec 5, 9:38 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Harry K writes:
> > Nope. The prop appears stationary and you see only the two.
>
> > What you see is the complete image (frame), not a composite of 4
> > 'frames'.
>
> You are both incorrect.

It snowed here last night.

Harry K

[Beryl[_2_]]

cavelamb himself wrote:
> Yes - I have a name wrote:
>
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> Shut the **** up, MX.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> So Say We All!
>>
>>
>
>
> So, which way is the naked lady spinning?
>
> http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html

The reflection of her raised leg on the floor lasts only half a turn,
moving from right to left. The leg is farther from the viewer during
that time, and there's not enough floor space in front of her to reflect
the leg when it's up close. So she's going CCW.

But I will *continue* to study this.

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Airbus writes:
>
>> Forget it dude - I'm not like you - will not make categorical statements
>> about subjects I know nothing about.
>
>Then why are you making categorical statements about me?
>



Well, that happens to be a subject I know something abvout - being a simple
subject, with few facets and little depth. . .

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Airbus wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>
>>On Dec 5, 2:05 pm, wrote:
>>
>>>In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Dec 4, 8:25 pm, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>After thinking that over...
>>>>>>>>It gets worse. There will be multiple rpm that will show the
>
> effect
>
>>>>>>>>under strobe conditions. With a 2 blade prop it can be
>
> sychronizing
>
>>>>>>>>every 1/2 rev. 3-blade prop every 1/3 or 2/3 rev, etc. in
>
> addition to
>
>>>>>>>>synching on the harmonics.
>>>
>>>>>>>It isn't that bad.
>>>
>>>>>>>Synchronization only occurs on integral fractions and engine RPM is
>>>>>>>usually 1000 and about 2700 RPM so the possibilities are limited.
>>>
>>>>>>>For a 2 bladed prop:
>>>
>>>>>>>7200/2= 3600 -> 1800 RPM
>>>
>>>>>>>7200/3= 2400 -> 2400 RPM and 1200 RPM
>>>
>>>>>>>7200/4= 1800 -> 1800 RPM and 900 RPM
>>>
>>>>>>>etc.
>>>
>>>>>>>I leave it to someone else to show how many blades you see at each
>
> RPM.
>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>Jim Pennino
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Since the prop appears stationary, you would see all the blades.
>>>
>>>>>Yes, but how many virtual blades will you see?
>>>
>>>>>Simple example: You are illuminating a 2 bladed prop running at 1000 RPM
>>>>>with a strobe light pulsing at 4000 pulses per minute.
>>>
>>>>>In the time between pulses, the prop makes 1/4 of a turn.
>>>
>>>>>The prop is therefor lite up every 1/4 turn and it appears as though
>>>>>the prop has 4 blades.
>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Jim Pennino
>>>
>>>>>Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>Nope. The prop appears stationary and you see only the two.
>>>>What you see is the complete image (frame), not a composite of 4
>>>>'frames'.
>>>
>>>I'm talking about eyeballs and strobed light here, there are no "images"
>>>or "frames" involved.
>>>
>>>What you see is a prop blade in whatever position it is in when
>>>the light goes off.
>>>
>>>If the light is going off every quarter turn, you see a particular
>>>blade end in four different places each a quarter turn apart.
>>>
>>>If the light is going off every sixth of a turn, you see a particular
>>>blade end in six different places each a sixth of a turn apart.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Jim Pennino
>>>
>>>Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>Yes, but you will see them (along with all the others) one at a time.
>>Not the entire sequence at once or even a composite. It is the same
>>as taking a snap shot with shutter speed fast enough to stop the
>>motion, it will show all blades, in this case it will show two blades
>>and no 'virtual' blades. You can prove it with a fan and a variable
>>strobe light but I suspect that will not be a common kitchen
>>appliance :).
>>
>
>
>
> Don't agree - I agree with Jim, and I do frequently use scientific strobe
> analysers for decomposing motion. With such a tool, one must be very careful to
> avoid harmonic illusions. Obvjects may appear to be moving in reverse, and
> indeed phantom members may appear - a fan or prop or spoke for example may
> easily appear to have more blades than it really has. Our eyes do not
> immobilize instantaneous images beyond a certain speed - this makes it
> possible for us to watch movies - or to be fooled by stroboscopic images.
>


One of my favorite stunts while checking out a new engine installation
was to use a cheap variable rate party strobe to see if anything was
moving. Amazing was a little variable rate stop action looking can spot.

[Alan Baker]

In article
>,
Harry K > wrote:

> On Dec 5, 2:05 pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 4, 8:25 pm, wrote:
> > > > In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > Harry K- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > > > After thinking that over...
> > > > > > > It gets worse. There will be multiple rpm that will show the
> > > > > > > effect
> > > > > > > under strobe conditions. With a 2 blade prop it can be
> > > > > > > sychronizing
> > > > > > > every 1/2 rev. 3-blade prop every 1/3 or 2/3 rev, etc. in
> > > > > > > addition to
> > > > > > > synching on the harmonics.
> >
> > > > > > It isn't that bad.
> >
> > > > > > Synchronization only occurs on integral fractions and engine RPM is
> > > > > > usually 1000 and about 2700 RPM so the possibilities are limited.
> >
> > > > > > For a 2 bladed prop:
> >
> > > > > > 7200/2= 3600 -> 1800 RPM
> >
> > > > > > 7200/3= 2400 -> 2400 RPM and 1200 RPM
> >
> > > > > > 7200/4= 1800 -> 1800 RPM and 900 RPM
> >
> > > > > > etc.
> >
> > > > > > I leave it to someone else to show how many blades you see at each
> > > > > > RPM.
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jim Pennino
> > > > > Since the prop appears stationary, you would see all the blades.
> >
> > > > Yes, but how many virtual blades will you see?
> >
> > > > Simple example: You are illuminating a 2 bladed prop running at 1000
> > > > RPM
> > > > with a strobe light pulsing at 4000 pulses per minute.
> >
> > > > In the time between pulses, the prop makes 1/4 of a turn.
> >
> > > > The prop is therefor lite up every 1/4 turn and it appears as though
> > > > the prop has 4 blades.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Jim Pennino
> >
> > > > Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Nope. The prop appears stationary and you see only the two.
> > > What you see is the complete image (frame), not a composite of 4
> > > 'frames'.
> >
> > I'm talking about eyeballs and strobed light here, there are no "images"
> > or "frames" involved.
> >
> > What you see is a prop blade in whatever position it is in when
> > the light goes off.
> >
> > If the light is going off every quarter turn, you see a particular
> > blade end in four different places each a quarter turn apart.
> >
> > If the light is going off every sixth of a turn, you see a particular
> > blade end in six different places each a sixth of a turn apart.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, but you will see them (along with all the others) one at a time.
> Not the entire sequence at once or even a composite. It is the same
> as taking a snap shot with shutter speed fast enough to stop the
> motion, it will show all blades, in this case it will show two blades
> and no 'virtual' blades. You can prove it with a fan and a variable
> strobe light but I suspect that will not be a common kitchen
> appliance :).
>
> Harry K

You are apparently unacquainted with the phenomenon known as
"persistence of vision".

Look it up.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2:05 pm, wrote:


> > What you see is a prop blade in whatever position it is in when
> > the light goes off.
> >
> > If the light is going off every quarter turn, you see a particular
> > blade end in four different places each a quarter turn apart.
> >
> > If the light is going off every sixth of a turn, you see a particular
> > blade end in six different places each a sixth of a turn apart.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -

> Yes, but you will see them (along with all the others) one at a time.
> Not the entire sequence at once or even a composite. It is the same
> as taking a snap shot with shutter speed fast enough to stop the
> motion, it will show all blades, in this case it will show two blades
> and no 'virtual' blades. You can prove it with a fan and a variable
> strobe light but I suspect that will not be a common kitchen
> appliance :).

Um, no.

Assuming everything is synchronous, you will see what appears to be
multiple blades because of eye persistence, the same reason movies
appear to smoothly move.

It is the same as taking snap shots with shutter speed fast enough
to stop the motion, and taking an integral number of snap shots
during the rotation.

Take one snap shot when the blade tip is straight up, take the
next when the blade has moved 90 degrees, the next when the blade
has moved another 90 degees, take the last when the blade has moved
another 90 degrees.

Make slides of the pictures and put them on top of each other to
simulate eye persistence.

Replace "take the snap shot" with "flash the strobe".

You can prove it with a fan and a variable strobe light.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[d.g.s.]

On 12/3/2007 8:32 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> At any given moment there are thousands of aircraft powered by turbofans in
> flight.

At any given moment, you're a total dip****. You also lie a lot.
--
dgs

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>On Dec 5, 2:05 pm, wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 4, 8:25 pm, wrote:
>> > > In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> > <snip>
>> > > > > > > Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>> > > > > > After thinking that over...
>> > > > > > It gets worse. There will be multiple rpm that will show the
effect
>> > > > > > under strobe conditions. With a 2 blade prop it can be
sychronizing
>> > > > > > every 1/2 rev. 3-blade prop every 1/3 or 2/3 rev, etc. in
addition to
>> > > > > > synching on the harmonics.
>>
>> > > > > It isn't that bad.
>>
>> > > > > Synchronization only occurs on integral fractions and engine RPM is
>> > > > > usually 1000 and about 2700 RPM so the possibilities are limited.
>>
>> > > > > For a 2 bladed prop:
>>
>> > > > > 7200/2= 3600 -> 1800 RPM
>>
>> > > > > 7200/3= 2400 -> 2400 RPM and 1200 RPM
>>
>> > > > > 7200/4= 1800 -> 1800 RPM and 900 RPM
>>
>> > > > > etc.
>>
>> > > > > I leave it to someone else to show how many blades you see at each
RPM.
>>
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Jim Pennino
>> > > > Since the prop appears stationary, you would see all the blades.
>>
>> > > Yes, but how many virtual blades will you see?
>>
>> > > Simple example: You are illuminating a 2 bladed prop running at 1000 RPM
>> > > with a strobe light pulsing at 4000 pulses per minute.
>>
>> > > In the time between pulses, the prop makes 1/4 of a turn.
>>
>> > > The prop is therefor lite up every 1/4 turn and it appears as though
>> > > the prop has 4 blades.
>>
>> > > --
>> > > Jim Pennino
>>
>> > > Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>> > Nope. The prop appears stationary and you see only the two.
>> > What you see is the complete image (frame), not a composite of 4
>> > 'frames'.
>>
>> I'm talking about eyeballs and strobed light here, there are no "images"
>> or "frames" involved.
>>
>> What you see is a prop blade in whatever position it is in when
>> the light goes off.
>>
>> If the light is going off every quarter turn, you see a particular
>> blade end in four different places each a quarter turn apart.
>>
>> If the light is going off every sixth of a turn, you see a particular
>> blade end in six different places each a sixth of a turn apart.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Yes, but you will see them (along with all the others) one at a time.
>Not the entire sequence at once or even a composite. It is the same
>as taking a snap shot with shutter speed fast enough to stop the
>motion, it will show all blades, in this case it will show two blades
>and no 'virtual' blades. You can prove it with a fan and a variable
>strobe light but I suspect that will not be a common kitchen
>appliance :).
>


Don't agree - I agree with Jim, and I do frequently use scientific strobe
analysers for decomposing motion. With such a tool, one must be very careful to
avoid harmonic illusions. Obvjects may appear to be moving in reverse, and
indeed phantom members may appear - a fan or prop or spoke for example may
easily appear to have more blades than it really has. Our eyes do not
immobilize instantaneous images beyond a certain speed - this makes it
possible for us to watch movies - or to be fooled by stroboscopic images.

[Harry K]

On Dec 5, 9:55 pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 2:05 pm, wrote:
> > > What you see is a prop blade in whatever position it is in when
> > > the light goes off.
>
> > > If the light is going off every quarter turn, you see a particular
> > > blade end in four different places each a quarter turn apart.
>
> > > If the light is going off every sixth of a turn, you see a particular
> > > blade end in six different places each a sixth of a turn apart.
>
> > > --
> > > Jim Pennino
>
> > > Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > Yes, but you will see them (along with all the others) one at a time.
> > Not the entire sequence at once or even a composite. It is the same
> > as taking a snap shot with shutter speed fast enough to stop the
> > motion, it will show all blades, in this case it will show two blades
> > and no 'virtual' blades. You can prove it with a fan and a variable
> > strobe light but I suspect that will not be a common kitchen
> > appliance :).
>
> Um, no.
>
> Assuming everything is synchronous, you will see what appears to be
> multiple blades because of eye persistence, the same reason movies
> appear to smoothly move.
>
> It is the same as taking snap shots with shutter speed fast enough
> to stop the motion, and taking an integral number of snap shots
> during the rotation.
>
> Take one snap shot when the blade tip is straight up, take the
> next when the blade has moved 90 degrees, the next when the blade
> has moved another 90 degees, take the last when the blade has moved
> another 90 degrees.
>
> Make slides of the pictures and put them on top of each other to
> simulate eye persistence.
>
> Replace "take the snap shot" with "flash the strobe".
>
> You can prove it with a fan and a variable strobe light.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hmmm...It looks like I will have to locate a strobe and try it. I
don't recall anything like that illusion back in my physics classes in
HS but that was near 60 years ago. Just one of those things where I
have to see it myself to believe it.

Harry K

[Mxsmanic]

dgs writes:

> You aren't only here to discuss aviation.

I try to discuss aviation, if I can find anyone else who wants to.

[george]

On Dec 5, 2:01 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:


> I've written a lot of Wikipedia articles myself. Do you believe what I've
> written because I put it in Wikipedia?

So that's where the inaccuracies about aviation came from...
Don't do it again

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> So that's where the inaccuracies about aviation came from...

Who said anything about aviation?

> Don't do it again

Or else what?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> So that's where the inaccuracies about aviation came from...
>
> Who said anything about aviation?
>
>> Don't do it again
>
> Or else what?
>

Or you'll prove yourself to be an ever bigger dickhead than anyone thought,
I would imagine.

I disagree,of course, I have complete faith in you.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Airbus > wrote in :

> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> I've written a lot of Wikipedia articles myself. Do you believe what
> I've
>> written because I put it in Wikipedia?
>>
>>george writes:
>>
>>> So that's where the inaccuracies about aviation came from...
>>
>>Who said anything about aviation?
>>
>
>
>
> That's right - I think I've found one of the articles ibn question :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
>
>

Now that'd be a keeper.


Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> I've written a lot of Wikipedia articles myself. Do you believe what
> I've
>> written because I put it in Wikipedia?
>>
>>george writes:
>>
>>> So that's where the inaccuracies about aviation came from...
>>
>>Who said anything about aviation?
>>
>
>
>
> That's right - I think I've found one of the articles ibn question :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

That looks like the one.

[george]

On Dec 8, 8:39 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Airbus" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
>
> >> I've written a lot of Wikipedia articles myself. Do you believe what
> > I've
> >> written because I put it in Wikipedia?
>
> >>george writes:
>
> >>> So that's where the inaccuracies about aviation came from...
>
> >>Who said anything about aviation?
>
> > That's right - I think I've found one of the articles ibn question :
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
>
> That looks like the one.

At least and for the first time he would have posted something upon
which he is undeniably, an expert.
Def:
X being an unknown quantity and spurt being a drip under pressure

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
> I've written a lot of Wikipedia articles myself. Do you believe what
I've
> written because I put it in Wikipedia?
>
>george writes:
>
>> So that's where the inaccuracies about aviation came from...
>
>Who said anything about aviation?
>



That's right - I think I've found one of the articles ibn question :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

[d.g.s.]

On 12/7/2007 11:39 AM Maxwell ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> "Airbus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> That's right - I think I've found one of the articles ibn question :
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
>
> That looks like the one.

This one certainly appears appropriate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger%27s_syndrome
--
dgs

[Maxwell]

"d.g.s." > wrote in message
...
> On 12/7/2007 11:39 AM Maxwell ignored two million years of human evolution
> to write:
>

so what's your point?

[nobody[_2_]]

"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
> but generally Aspergers is considered less debilitating, less
> of an "illness" and more of a "trait".

For personal reasons totally unrelated to aviation or the Eunuch, could you
point me to a reference describing Aspergers as a trait rather than an
illness?

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> For personal reasons totally unrelated to aviation or the Eunuch, could you
> point me to a reference describing Aspergers as a trait rather than an
> illness?

The burden of proof is upon those who call it an illness, and that burden of
proof has not been satisfied.

Aspergers in many cases is an invention of extroverts, who believe that anyone
who isn't extroverted must be mentally ill. Many extroverts have trouble
understanding any viewpoints other than their own.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> For personal reasons totally unrelated to aviation or the Eunuch,
>> could you point me to a reference describing Aspergers as a trait
>> rather than an illness?
>
> The burden of proof is upon those who call it an illness, and that
> burden of proof has not been satisfied.
>
> Aspergers in many cases is an invention of extroverts, who believe
> that anyone who isn't extroverted must be mentally ill. Many
> extroverts have trouble understanding any viewpoints other than their
> own.
>
Wheras you;re just an idiot.


No excuses, eh?



Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
. 18...
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> "What's", Darrel...
>
> Puncuation, Matt...

So you can't spell, nor punctuate?

[nobody[_2_]]

"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>
>>"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
>>> but generally Aspergers is considered less debilitating, less
>>> of an "illness" and more of a "trait".
>>
>>For personal reasons totally unrelated to aviation or the Eunuch, could
>>you
>>point me to a reference describing Aspergers as a trait rather than an
>>illness?
>>
>>
>
> http://www.journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5
> 5139
>

Many Thanks.

I've been having this discussion with my wife since my son was 'diagnosed'.

[Airbus]

In article >, says...

>This one certainly appears appropriate:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger%27s_syndrome



It's a little hard to call whether MX's affective disorder is more on the
"Narcissistic" or "Asperger's" spectrum.

Both involve extreme overvaluation of one's self, lack of empathy and
misreading of others' intent, and both have different degrees of
debilitation, but generally Aspergers is considered less debilitating, less
of an "illness" and more of a "trait". Bill Gates, for example, is perhaps
the world's best-known Aspergers case, but is still functional at a high
level.

That's mostly why I would opt for "Narcissistic" in MX's case, as his
functioning is completely removed from reality. His intelligence is real,
but his estimation of the value of his contribution shows a high level of
dissociation from reality, and he is incapable of understanding the value
of others' contributions. The world turns around confirming the
all-encompassing authority of his own assertions, and he will freely resort
to every form of artifice and intellectual dishonesty to uphold this
principle.

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> I've been having this discussion with my wife since my son was 'diagnosed'.

Is his IQ above average?

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> It's one of those "spectrum" disorders, in which the degree makes all the
> difference.

It's one of those imaginary disorders, in which people claim that anyone
different from themselves has an "illness."

> Many are high-level, high acheivers ...

In other words, there's nothing wrong with them.

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> nobody writes:
>
>> I've been having this discussion with my wife since my son was
>> 'diagnosed'.
>
> Is his IQ above average?

That is not your business

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> I've been having this discussion with my wife since my son was
>> 'diagnosed'.
>
> Is his IQ above average?


Is your's?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> It's one of those "spectrum" disorders, in which the degree makes all
>> the difference.
>
> It's one of those imaginary disorders, in which people claim that
> anyone different from themselves has an "illness."



Just because you're and idiot doesn't make you ill, fjukktard..
>
>> Many are high-level, high acheivers ...
>
> In other words, there's nothing wrong with them.

Snort!


Yeah, that's the datum for perfection.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"nobody" > wrote in news:QMF6j.226636$kj1.118918
@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> nobody writes:
>>
>>> I've been having this discussion with my wife since my son was
>>> 'diagnosed'.
>>
>> Is his IQ above average?
>
> That is not your business


What, you;re going to pass up a diagnosis but the expert in , well,
EVERYTHING?!!!!!!

Are you mad?


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Airbus" > wrote

> There's something wrong with you - you know it, and you desperately need
> help.

I heard something else in the last day or two that got me thinking.

In addition to all of his other problems, I think I know what one of his
largest problems is, that explain his behavior on the internet.

He is addicted to attention. Positive, negative; it makes no difference.
Attention is what he craves, and must have it, above anything else in his
life. Just like drugs, he will get it, one way or the other.

So there it is; another thing to add onto his list of problems. Addictive
personality disorder.

This one fits too well to not be true.
--
Jim in NC

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Airbus" > wrote
>
>
>>There's something wrong with you - you know it, and you desperately need
>>help.
>
>
> I heard something else in the last day or two that got me thinking.
>
> In addition to all of his other problems, I think I know what one of his
> largest problems is, that explain his behavior on the internet.
>
> He is addicted to attention. Positive, negative; it makes no difference.
> Attention is what he craves, and must have it, above anything else in his
> life. Just like drugs, he will get it, one way or the other.
>
> So there it is; another thing to add onto his list of problems. Addictive
> personality disorder.
>
> This one fits too well to not be true.


My girl friend's 15 year old daughter is like that.
She needs LOTS of entertainment too.

Nearly impossible to have a non-drama day.

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
>> but generally Aspergers is considered less debilitating, less
>> of an "illness" and more of a "trait".
>
>For personal reasons totally unrelated to aviation or the Eunuch, could you
>point me to a reference describing Aspergers as a trait rather than an
>illness?
>
>

http://www.journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5
5139

[Morgans[_2_]]

"cavelamb himself" > wrote

> My girl friend's 15 year old daughter is like that.
> She needs LOTS of entertainment too.
>
> Nearly impossible to have a non-drama day.

This seems to be more a part of the normal, for today's youth.

Think of it, when you were young. If there was not anything on TV while you
were at home, (good chance that there wasn't, with the selection of perhaps
5 channels if you lived near a big city) what did you do to pass the time?
You probably entertained yourself. Things I did were to ride a bike around
the neighborhood, dig another extension to my tunnels out in the woods,
build a blanket fort (smaller years) read a book, tear something apart and
put it back together again, (the last part was optional <g>) play with your
toys, go roller skating, ....... and the list goes on.

Now most things for the kids to do involve something or someone to entertain
them, with possibly hundreds of TV channels, music videos, video games,
internet (IM your friends) surf the internet, and so on. What do all or
most of the things today involve? Something or someone to ENTERTAIN
.....THEM! It also follows for teaching. We have to keep their attention by
entertaining them, for them to even begin considering learning something.

Not saying that this isn't true with your situation, since I don't know her,
but that is somewhat a state of being for a 15 year old, especially the
girls, I think.

*Especially* the part about the drama! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Airbus wrote:
> In article >, says...
>
>>
>>
>>"Airbus" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>There's something wrong with you - you know it, and you desperately need
>>>help.
>>
>>I heard something else in the last day or two that got me thinking.
>>
>>In addition to all of his other problems, I think I know what one of his
>>largest problems is, that explain his behavior on the internet.
>>
>>He is addicted to attention. Positive, negative; it makes no difference.
>>Attention is what he craves, and must have it, above anything else in his
>>life. Just like drugs, he will get it, one way or the other.
>>
>>So there it is; another thing to add onto his list of problems. Addictive
>>personality disorder.
>>
>>This one fits too well to not be true.
>
>
>
>
> Maybe - maybe not that simple.
> Attention craving, certainly, but addictive, not necessarily.
> I bet he doesn't play the lottery obsessively, or the horses.
> But I'll also bet he doesn't have an abundance of friends dropping in.
> It's more related to an inability to establish intimacy - something that went
> wrong in that department a long time ago - It will take a long time to get to
> the bottom of it, and a long time to get back out, but it is possible to work
> through it. . .
>


I think that brings us all the way around to old light bulb jokes.

How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?

None - if the light bulb really wants to change...

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> That is not your business

But his Alzheimer's diagnosis is? Hmm.

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>
>>>
>>>"Airbus" > wrote in message
...
>>>> but generally Aspergers is considered less debilitating, less
>>>> of an "illness" and more of a "trait".
>>>
>>>For personal reasons totally unrelated to aviation or the Eunuch, could
>>>you
>>>point me to a reference describing Aspergers as a trait rather than an
>>>illness?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
http://www.journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5
>> 5139
>>
>
>Many Thanks.
>
>I've been having this discussion with my wife since my son was 'diagnosed'.
>

It's one of those "spectrum" disorders, in which the degree makes all the
difference. Many are high-level, high acheivers. . . In other cases, living
with a family member can be a real challenge . . .

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 02:52:14 -0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

>In article >,
>Maxwell > wrote:
>>
>>>> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:09:30 -0000, Jim Logajan >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At cruise RPM that effect would be completely lost. There's not a
>>>> bird or human alive that can discern stroboscopic effects of more than
>>>> a couple hundred cycles let alone over a 1000. Most of us can't even
>>>> discern 60 cps.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
...
>>> True, but aren't we talking about 40 cps when the prop RPM is 2400?
>>>
>>
>>Seems I have heard the 16 cps is all that is required for movies to appear
>>continuous. I think the human eye loosed it around 12 or 13. However, we
>>don't seen consciously either. Hence the reason an aircraft propeller will
>>appear to be revolving slowly backwards at times.
>
>Visual perception is funny and complex.
>
>black & white films were 16 frames/second.
>Color films are 24 frames/second
>
>U.S. TV is 60 fields/second, European is 50/second.
> This is driven more by the need for phospors that 'decay' rapidly enough
> to not produce 'blurred' motion than perception issues.
>
>OTOH, A significant number of people can perceive 'flicker' in conventional-
>tube fluorescent lamps. which is at 120 flickers/second.

I seriously doubt they can. I can discern the flicker in *some*
fluorescent lights, but I can not discern 120 cps on a strobe. I
think what they are seeing is the "sputter" of a cold lamp or a light
that isn't starting correctly. The flicker I see in those lamps is
considerably slower than 120 or even 60 cps.
>
First, for any flicker the phosphor has to be defective which means
the lamp is already defective so we can't expect it to be behaving
normally.

it would be interesting to see if those same people can discern even
60 cps in a strobe.

>Also, the eye -- and brain -- 'notices' things that are too fleeting for
>conscious identification. Google 'subliminal' advertizing -- IIRC, lab
>tests showed that injected imagery with a duration of only a few milliseconds
>had 'measurable' effects.

It's controversial, but has been called one of the greatest myths of
all time. It's generally accepted they are ineffective.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=87742853-E7F2-99DF-320ACFB80225DE19&sc=I100322
According to the Scientific American article they at best distract the
viewer.

Roger (K8RI)

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Airbus writes:
>
>> It's one of those "spectrum" disorders, in which the degree makes all the
>> difference.
>
>It's one of those imaginary disorders, in which people claim that anyone
>different from themselves has an "illness."
>
>> Many are high-level, high acheivers ...
>
>In other words, there's nothing wrong with them.


There's something wrong with you - you know it, and you desperately need help.

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Airbus writes:

>> I'm so impressed.
>
>Why? Anyone can look up the specs, even though many people are too lazy to do
>so.


It is not surprising that someone with your disability cannot grasp sarcasm,
even when it is reduced to its simplest expression. Get help dude. You already
have the number written down - call it.

[Airbus]

In article >, says...
>
>
>
>"Airbus" > wrote
>
>> There's something wrong with you - you know it, and you desperately need
>> help.
>
>I heard something else in the last day or two that got me thinking.
>
>In addition to all of his other problems, I think I know what one of his
>largest problems is, that explain his behavior on the internet.
>
>He is addicted to attention. Positive, negative; it makes no difference.
>Attention is what he craves, and must have it, above anything else in his
>life. Just like drugs, he will get it, one way or the other.
>
>So there it is; another thing to add onto his list of problems. Addictive
>personality disorder.
>
>This one fits too well to not be true.



Maybe - maybe not that simple.
Attention craving, certainly, but addictive, not necessarily.
I bet he doesn't play the lottery obsessively, or the horses.
But I'll also bet he doesn't have an abundance of friends dropping in.
It's more related to an inability to establish intimacy - something that went
wrong in that department a long time ago - It will take a long time to get to
the bottom of it, and a long time to get back out, but it is possible to work
through it. . .

[Tina]

There is quite a lot of evidence that repeated mental processes do in
fact modify the physical brain. Bagley's book "Train Your Mind, Change
Your Brain", is worth glacing thru if you find the professional
literature boring.

If a person's mental activity is largely devoted to playing a
simulator game and posting on the net, one can be sure other underused
parts of the brain begin getting used to support those activiites. If
you pilot an airplane often, the process becomes 'easier' because
there's actually more brain devoted to it. Some other underused
activity will be less supported.

Researchers are always on the lookout for subjects who spend much of
their time in unusual ways, so that their brain functions can be
mapped with some of the newer imaging methodologies.

Anthony, I have this infromed consent document here I'd like you to
read. After you sign it we're going to stick your head in this fNMR
brain bloodflow imaging device. . . . .

Hey guys, don't laugh. It may sound funny, but we do that kind of
stuff every day. And there are many many safeguards to protect all of
our subjects, so don't start thinking after the process someone like
Anthony after being subjected to intense magnetic fields will only
walk north or something.


although poorly On Dec 9, 5:48 am, Airbus > wrote:
> In article >, says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Airbus" > wrote
>
> >> There's something wrong with you - you know it, and you desperately need
> >> help.
>
> >I heard something else in the last day or two that got me thinking.
>
> >In addition to all of his other problems, I think I know what one of his
> >largest problems is, that explain his behavior on the internet.
>
> >He is addicted to attention. Positive, negative; it makes no difference.
> >Attention is what he craves, and must have it, above anything else in his
> >life. Just like drugs, he will get it, one way or the other.
>
> >So there it is; another thing to add onto his list of problems. Addictive
> >personality disorder.
>
> >This one fits too well to not be true.
>
> Maybe - maybe not that simple.
> Attention craving, certainly, but addictive, not necessarily.
> I bet he doesn't play the lottery obsessively, or the horses.
> But I'll also bet he doesn't have an abundance of friends dropping in.
> It's more related to an inability to establish intimacy - something that went
> wrong in that department a long time ago - It will take a long time to get to
> the bottom of it, and a long time to get back out, but it is possible to work
> through it. . .- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Airbus" > wrote

> Funny, I see it just about the opposite - with a much greater risk of kids
> becoming isolated today because of their technology. Not only are some of
> them
> playing video games 16 hours a day, but even their friends are virtual
> chat
> partners. Many parents would like to have more contact with their kids, do
> stuff together. .

I don't think what you're saying is contrary to what I (tried) saying. They
are still being, and expected to be entertained, by the technology as you
said.

When this stuff is not available, they still expect to be entertained.

Gotta go. See ya.
--
Jim in NC

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> nobody writes:
>
>> That is not your business
>
> But his Alzheimer's diagnosis is?

Nope

[Mxsmanic]

nobody writes:

> Nope

Then why did you announce it to thousands of people on the Internet, where it
will be archived for decades?

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> I seriously doubt they can. I can discern the flicker in *some*
> fluorescent lights, but I can not discern 120 cps on a strobe. I
> think what they are seeing is the "sputter" of a cold lamp or a light
> that isn't starting correctly. The flicker I see in those lamps is
> considerably slower than 120 or even 60 cps.

Peripheral vision is much more sensitive to flicker than central vision. Some
people will perceive an irritating flicker in a lamp or computer monitor each
time they turn away from it, and yet the flicker will disappear when they look
directly at it.

The perception is limited to the impression that the light is flickering; that
doesn't mean that they can count the individual flashes.

> First, for any flicker the phosphor has to be defective ...

How can the phosphor be defective?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Roger (K8RI) writes:
>
>> I seriously doubt they can. I can discern the flicker in *some*
>> fluorescent lights, but I can not discern 120 cps on a strobe. I
>> think what they are seeing is the "sputter" of a cold lamp or a light
>> that isn't starting correctly. The flicker I see in those lamps is
>> considerably slower than 120 or even 60 cps.
>
> Peripheral vision is much more sensitive to flicker than central vision.
> Some
> people will perceive an irritating flicker in a lamp or computer monitor
> each
> time they turn away from it, and yet the flicker will disappear when they
> look
> directly at it.
>
> The perception is limited to the impression that the light is flickering;
> that
> doesn't mean that they can count the individual flashes.
>
>> First, for any flicker the phosphor has to be defective ...
>
> How can the phosphor be defective?

No, that's just a symptom of the electro shock therapy.

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"Tina" > wrote in message
...

> If a person's mental activity is largely devoted to playing a
> simulator game and posting on the net, one can be sure other underused
> parts of the brain begin getting used to support those activiites. If
> you pilot an airplane often, the process becomes 'easier' because
> there's actually more brain devoted to it. Some other underused
> activity will be less supported.

So ........ posting on r.a.h. and flying airplanes decreases sexual
activity???

Rich "I'm outa here" S.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Rich S." > wrote

> So ........ posting on r.a.h. and flying airplanes decreases sexual
> activity???
>
> Rich "I'm outa here" S.

Rich; Go to your room!

;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Tina]

On Dec 9, 12:10 pm, "Rich S." >
wrote:
> So ........ posting on r.a.h. and flying airplanes decreases sexual
> activity???
>
> Rich "I'm outa here" S.

Only, Rich, if you hadn't been using part of your brain for those
other functions. As many here have characterized flying, "the most fun
you can have with your clothes on" (I might dispute that, but that's
another matter) so I suspect sex isn't far from real pilot's minds.
EVER! Well, maybe when they break out of a cloud and are see a
mountain coming at them at high speed they are distracted a little.

And Mr Dudley keeps his mind clear of distractions, as he mentioned
somewhere here, too. I think, on that subject, Mr Dudley, sailplane
drivers probably get closest to the emotions expressed in High Flight,
but can't speak from direct knowledge of that. Dudley, the Mr is a
sign of respect, by the way. There are a select few here I'd demand
call me by my first name: "Professor".

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> That is not your business
>
> But his Alzheimer's diagnosis is? Hmm.
>

Maybe not, but my idiot diagnosis is inarguable.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> nobody writes:
>
>> Nope
>
> Then why did you announce it to thousands of people on the Internet,
> where it will be archived for decades?
>

Why do you post your idiocy for all time, fjukkwit?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Roger (K8RI) writes:
>
>> I seriously doubt they can. I can discern the flicker in *some*
>> fluorescent lights, but I can not discern 120 cps on a strobe. I
>> think what they are seeing is the "sputter" of a cold lamp or a light
>> that isn't starting correctly. The flicker I see in those lamps is
>> considerably slower than 120 or even 60 cps.
>
> Peripheral vision is much more sensitive to flicker than central
> vision. Some people will perceive an irritating flicker in a lamp or
> computer monitor each time they turn away from it,

A bit like looking at you.
Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "cavelamb himself" > wrote
>
>> My girl friend's 15 year old daughter is like that.
>> She needs LOTS of entertainment too.
>>
>> Nearly impossible to have a non-drama day.
>
> This seems to be more a part of the normal, for today's youth.
>
> Think of it, when you were young. If there was not anything on TV
> while you were at home, (good chance that there wasn't, with the
> selection of perhaps 5 channels if you lived near a big city) what did
> you do to pass the time? You probably entertained yourself. Things I
> did were to ride a bike around the neighborhood, dig another extension
> to my tunnels out in the woods, build a blanket fort (smaller years)
> read a book, tear something apart and put it back together again, (the
> last part was optional <g>) play with your toys, go roller skating,
> ....... and the list goes on.


Torture small animals, set fire to stuff. find out what happend when you
hit a .22 shell with a hammer, try to run your dad's car on MEK. Try to
run your dog on MEK. Find out why it says "do not puncture or incinerate
" on a can of blue spray paint. Work out time speed distance
calculations on the overpass at your local freeway....


Good clean fun!



Bertie

[george]

On Dec 10, 4:30 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:


> Then why did you announce it to thousands of people on the Internet, where it
> will be archived for decades?

Ponder (for the length your short attention span permits) just what
you typed above and parse it with your 100% error rate posting to the
net..

[Airbus]

In article >, says...
>
>
>
>"cavelamb himself" > wrote
>
>> My girl friend's 15 year old daughter is like that.
>> She needs LOTS of entertainment too.
>>
>> Nearly impossible to have a non-drama day.
>
>This seems to be more a part of the normal, for today's youth.
>
>Think of it, when you were young. If there was not anything on TV while you
>were at home, (good chance that there wasn't, with the selection of perhaps
>5 channels if you lived near a big city) what did you do to pass the time?
>You probably entertained yourself. Things I did were to ride a bike around
>the neighborhood, dig another extension to my tunnels out in the woods,
>build a blanket fort (smaller years) read a book, tear something apart and
>put it back together again, (the last part was optional <g>) play with your
>toys, go roller skating, ....... and the list goes on.
>
>Now most things for the kids to do involve something or someone to entertain
>them, with possibly hundreds of TV channels, music videos, video games,
>internet (IM your friends) surf the internet, and so on. What do all or
>most of the things today involve? Something or someone to ENTERTAIN
>....THEM! It also follows for teaching. We have to keep their attention by
>entertaining them, for them to even begin considering learning something.
>



Funny, I see it just about the opposite - with a much greater risk of kids
becoming isolated today because of their technology. Not only are some of them
playing video games 16 hours a day, but even their friends are virtual chat
partners. Many parents would like to have more contact with their kids, do
stuff together. . .

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> nobody writes:
>
>> Nope
>
> Then why did you announce it to thousands of people on the Internet, where
> it
> will be archived for decades?

More information to which you're not entitled.

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>There is quite a lot of evidence that repeated mental processes do in
>fact modify the physical brain. Bagley's book "Train Your Mind, Change
>Your Brain", is worth glacing thru if you find the professional
>literature boring.
>
>If a person's mental activity is largely devoted to playing a
>simulator game and posting on the net, one can be sure other underused
>parts of the brain begin getting used to support those activiites. If
>you pilot an airplane often, the process becomes 'easier' because
>there's actually more brain devoted to it. Some other underused
>activity will be less supported.
>
>Researchers are always on the lookout for subjects who spend much of
>their time in unusual ways, so that their brain functions can be
>mapped with some of the newer imaging methodologies.
>
>Anthony, I have this infromed consent document here I'd like you to
>read. After you sign it we're going to stick your head in this fNMR
>brain bloodflow imaging device. . . . .
>
>Hey guys, don't laugh. It may sound funny, but we do that kind of
>stuff every day. And there are many many safeguards to protect all of
>our subjects, so don't start thinking after the process someone like
>Anthony after being subjected to intense magnetic fields will only
>walk north or something.



Sounds good - he's walking plenty south these days, with large compass
turning errors . . .

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"Tina" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 9, 12:10 pm, "Rich S." >
> wrote:
>> So ........ posting on r.a.h. and flying airplanes decreases sexual
>> activity???
>>
>> Rich "I'm outa here" S.
>
> Only, Rich, if you hadn't been using part of your brain for those
> other functions.

Tina .........

Looking at the use ratio from a male standpoint, my wife maintains that I do
not, nor have I ever, used my brain before, during or after sexual activity.
Only since I turned 65 has she said, "It's all in my head". Conclusion: In
my case I can post and fly all I want.

Rich "Mem'ries" S.

[Tina]

On Dec 10, 11:23 am, "Rich S." >
wrote:
> "Tina" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Dec 9, 12:10 pm, "Rich S." >
> > wrote:
> >> So ........ posting on r.a.h. and flying airplanes decreases sexual
> >> activity???
>
> >> Rich "I'm outa here" S.
>
> > Only, Rich, if you hadn't been using part of your brain for those
> > other functions.
>
> Tina .........
>
> Looking at the use ratio from a male standpoint, my wife maintains that I do
> not, nor have I ever, used my brain before, during or after sexual activity.
> Only since I turned 65 has she said, "It's all in my head". Conclusion: In
> my case I can post and fly all I want.
>
> Rich "Mem'ries" S.

As a shrink, Rich, I can tell you with certainty that it need not be
all in your head at 65. How can I make that observation aviation
related? Ah, got it. Like flying, it's 90% mental, and the other 10%
is in your head.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Tina" > wrote in message
...

> As a shrink, Rich,

Oh, dear. I hope we're not going to end up as the subject of some monograph.

"Dynamic Behavioral Dysfunction in Internet-Based Affinity Groups as Determined by
Personality Traits Displayed through 'At a Distance' Communication"

[Tina]

Points to you, John!

Did your research protocol gain approval from a duly convened
Institutional Review Board? And how would you get informed consent
from some of the members of this newsgroup? Even more bothersome would
be getting consent from a subject with diminished capacity who lives
in France.

dibs on coauthor status, by the way.



On Dec 10, 12:58 pm, "John Mazor" > wrote:
> "Tina" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > As a shrink, Rich,
>
> Oh, dear. I hope we're not going to end up as the subject of some monograph.
>
> "Dynamic Behavioral Dysfunction in Internet-Based Affinity Groups as Determined by
> Personality Traits Displayed through 'At a Distance' Communication"

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Tina" > wrote in message
...
> Points to you, John!

Thenk yew.

> Did your research protocol gain approval from a duly convened
> Institutional Review Board?

Well, since playing in any Internet group arguably is tantamount to
self-institutionalization of the participants, I figure that collectively we
constitute the Committee of the Whole of the Institutional Review Board.

>And how would you get informed consent
> from some of the members of this newsgroup?

The part about a participant being "informed" already has proven to be extremly
problematic for some posters.

> Even more bothersome would
> be getting consent from a subject with diminished capacity who lives
> in France.

We'll just tell him it's a petition to award the Legion d'honneur to Jerry Lewis.

> dibs on coauthor status, by the way.

You got it!

[Tina]

OK, Principal Investigator, wanna tell me about who's funding this?
National Enquirer? Playboy?

MSFS?




On Dec 10, 6:32 pm, "John Mazor" > wrote:
> "Tina" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Points to you, John!
>
> Thenk yew.
>
> > Did your research protocol gain approval from a duly convened
> > Institutional Review Board?
>
> Well, since playing in any Internet group arguably is tantamount to
> self-institutionalization of the participants, I figure that collectively we
> constitute the Committee of the Whole of the Institutional Review Board.
>
> >And how would you get informed consent
> > from some of the members of this newsgroup?
>
> The part about a participant being "informed" already has proven to be extremly
> problematic for some posters.
>
> > Even more bothersome would
> > be getting consent from a subject with diminished capacity who lives
> > in France.
>
> We'll just tell him it's a petition to award the Legion d'honneur to Jerry Lewis.
>
> > dibs on coauthor status, by the way.
>
> You got it!

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote
>
> Oh, dear. I hope we're not going to end up as the subject of some
> monograph.
>
> "Dynamic Behavioral Dysfunction in Internet-Based Affinity Groups as
> Determined by Personality Traits Displayed through 'At a Distance'
> Communication"


It would actually be a good thing, if some of your colleagues and you got
together, and tried to figure him out, and could get him help.

Perhaps if he got better, he would not be such a pain in the arse.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Tina" > wrote

> OK, Principal Investigator, wanna tell me about who's funding this?
> National Enquirer? Playboy?
>
> MSFS?
Actually, that might even fly, with MSFS.

The big casinos and gambling establishments all belong to some group that
they give millions of dollars to, so that people that lose control and
display behaviors of a gambling addiction can get help, right?

If they can do that, then perhaps Microsoft could put some money up for
helping with a gaming addiction, and the other behaviors that are surely a
sign of other problems, ya think?

OK, John, contact Microsoft and get the funding arranged ! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Mazor" > wrote
>>
>> Oh, dear. I hope we're not going to end up as the subject of some monograph.
>>
>> "Dynamic Behavioral Dysfunction in Internet-Based Affinity Groups as Determined by
>> Personality Traits Displayed through 'At a Distance' Communication"
>
> It would actually be a good thing, if some of your colleagues and you got together,
> and tried to figure him out, and could get him help.

I'm good but I'm not a miracle worker!

> Perhaps if he got better, he would not be such a pain in the arse.

The betting line in Vegas on that is 800:1 against.

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:
> "Darrel Toepfer" > wrote...
>> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:
>>
>>> "What's", Darrel...
>>
>> Puncuation, Matt...
>
> So you can't spell, nor punctuate?

Neaux Matt, you can't... 3 periods is a trademark of sorts for my posts.
What's your excuse?

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:01:27 -0800, Airbus > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>>
>>There is quite a lot of evidence that repeated mental processes do in
>>fact modify the physical brain. Bagley's book "Train Your Mind, Change
>>Your Brain", is worth glacing thru if you find the professional
>>literature boring.

Also learning grows new connections
The mind like muscles benefits from exercise. Mental exercise that is.

If you lose a function such as walking, it is possible for the brain
to make new connections.

>>
>>If a person's mental activity is largely devoted to playing a
>>simulator game and posting on the net, one can be sure other underused
>>parts of the brain begin getting used to support those activiites. If
>>you pilot an airplane often, the process becomes 'easier' because
>>there's actually more brain devoted to it. Some other underused
>>activity will be less supported.
>>
>>Researchers are always on the lookout for subjects who spend much of
>>their time in unusual ways, so that their brain functions can be
>>mapped with some of the newer imaging methodologies.
>>
>>Anthony, I have this infromed consent document here I'd like you to
>>read. After you sign it we're going to stick your head in this fNMR
>>brain bloodflow imaging device. . . . .

Just the thing for any one who is remotely claustrophobic.<:-))
It helps you work on your concentration.
>>
>>Hey guys, don't laugh. It may sound funny, but we do that kind of
>>stuff every day. And there are many many safeguards to protect all of
>>our subjects, so don't start thinking after the process someone like
>>Anthony after being subjected to intense magnetic fields will only
>>walk north or something.

I never knew magnetic fields could be so loud.
For the un-initiated, they stick you into this big machine with just
your feet sticking out and the base is about a 1/4 inch from the end
of your nose. And...that is in what they call the "open" machine.

After my left leg and hand quit working they stuck me in one of these.
Then after all that they told me it was "all in my head".

Roger
>
>
>
>Sounds good - he's walking plenty south these days, with large compass
>turning errors . . .
>

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> I never knew magnetic fields could be so loud.

Magnetic fields make no noise. The noise of a MRI scanner is generated by the
physical movement of the magnets inside.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:36:14 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) writes:
>
>> I never knew magnetic fields could be so loud.
>
>Magnetic fields make no noise. The noise of a MRI scanner is generated by the
>physical movement of the magnets inside.

And there goes another one, right over the top<:-))

Roger

[george]

On Dec 12, 1:43 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:36:14 +0100, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
> >Roger (K8RI) writes:
>
> >> I never knew magnetic fields could be so loud.
>
> >Magnetic fields make no noise. The noise of a MRI scanner is generated by the
> >physical movement of the magnets inside.
>
> And there goes another one, right over the top<:-))
>
and out of (left) magnetic field

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:34:36 GMT, Darrel Toepfer >
wrote:

>"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:
>> "Darrel Toepfer" > wrote...
>>> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "What's", Darrel...
>>>
>>> Puncuation, Matt...
>>
>> So you can't spell, nor punctuate?
>
>Neaux Matt, you can't... 3 periods is a trademark of sorts for my posts.
>What's your excuse?

Three periods are an accepted method of indicating a pause.

Roger (K8RI)