Why airplanes taxi

[[email protected]]

Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
move forward
on the ground.

:-) I am feeling profound today...

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> move forward on the ground.

So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 10:24*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> > move forward on the ground.
>
> So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
> should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

Space isn't frictionless dummy.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Space isn't frictionless dummy.

Where does the friction come from?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 10:36*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Space isn't frictionless dummy.
>
> Where does the friction come from?

Molecules

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 10:39*am, wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:36*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > writes:
> > > Space isn't frictionless dummy.
>
> > Where does the friction come from?
>
> Molecules

And to answer your next post before you post it:

What molecules?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 6, 9:24*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> > move forward on the ground.
>
> So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
> should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

No, it still takes energy to accelerate a mass, even in a frictionless
environment. However, it would not take energy to maintain velocity in
a friction free environment. However, space (especially near space) is
not frictionless.

-Robert

[Bob F.]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Space isn't frictionless dummy.
>
> Where does the friction come from?

Two posters arguing with eachother. :-)

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Molecules

There aren't any molecules in space. It's a hard vacuum.

[Phil J]

On Feb 6, 10:19*am, wrote:
> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> move forward
> on the ground.


Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Fixed-wing aircraft can only achieve a stable taxi by keeping the CG
between the forward and aft wheel points(WPs). This is why it is so
important in aircraft design that the WPs be placed correctly. In
the early days of aviation some designers placed all the wheels to one
side of the CG, with the result that the aircraft was dynamically
unstable in taxi. Sadly, many lives were lost before this phenomenon
was understood.

If the CG is placed correctly in relation to the WPs, the aircraft
establishes taxi by moving the Earth beneath it. Turns are achieved
by rotating the Earth. Flight is achieved by dropping the Earth down,
and a landing is made by lifting it back up. Aerobatics involve
combinations of lifting, dropping, and rotating.

I hope this clears things up for everyone.

Phil

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And to answer your next post before you post it:
>
> What molecules?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space

"While not being an actual perfect vacuum, outer space contains such sparse
matter that it can be effectively thought of as one. The pressure of
interstellar space is on the order of 10 pPa (1×10-11 Pa)."

So, no molecules. And no friction.

Even if you don't wish to consider the hard vacuum of space as perfect, with a
pressure that is 10,000,000,000,000,000 times lower than that of Earth at sea
level, the friction should be also that much lower, and thus the speed of a
taxi should be trillions of times faster. The speed of light is only fifteen
million times faster than a 40-knot taxi, so nearly the speed of light might
well be achieved long before any residual friction could have any effect.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> On Feb 6, 9:24*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> > > Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> > > move forward on the ground.
> >
> > So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
> > should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.
>
> No, it still takes energy to accelerate a mass, even in a frictionless
> environment.

But the original post said that aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce
friction. No mention of energy or force. So if the statement is true,
movement results from a lack of friction alone, so zero friction should
produce infinite speed (or lightspeed if one allows the speed of light as an
absolute upper limit).

> However, space (especially near space) is not frictionless.

Nor does friction produce acceleration. QED.

[Tina]

Gee, where would the energy come from to cause the acceleration?

On Feb 6, 2:00*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > And to answer your next post before you post it:
>
> > What molecules?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space
>
> "While not being an actual perfect vacuum, outer space contains such sparse
> matter that it can be effectively thought of as one. The pressure of
> interstellar space is on the order of 10 pPa (1×10-11 Pa)."
>
> So, no molecules. *And no friction.
>
> Even if you don't wish to consider the hard vacuum of space as perfect, with a
> pressure that is 10,000,000,000,000,000 times lower than that of Earth at sea
> level, the friction should be also that much lower, and thus the speed of a
> taxi should be trillions of times faster. *The speed of light is only fifteen
> million times faster than a 40-knot taxi, so nearly the speed of light might
> well be achieved long before any residual friction could have any effect.

[gpaleo[_2_]]

"Phil J" > wrote
...


Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Fixed-wing aircraft can only achieve a stable taxi by keeping the CG
between the forward and aft wheel points(WPs). This is why it is so
important in aircraft design that the WPs be placed correctly. In
the early days of aviation some designers placed all the wheels to one
side of the CG, with the result that the aircraft was dynamically
unstable in taxi. Sadly, many lives were lost before this phenomenon
was understood.

If the CG is placed correctly in relation to the WPs, the aircraft
establishes taxi by moving the Earth beneath it. Turns are achieved
by rotating the Earth. Flight is achieved by dropping the Earth down,
and a landing is made by lifting it back up. Aerobatics involve
combinations of lifting, dropping, and rotating.

I hope this clears things up for everyone.

Phil


Hah...hah....
This is called the pilot's perspective: (s)he sits in the cockpit and the
earth performs the requisite manoevers.

[Tina]

Phil, to support your theory, I can tell you the earth weighs 130
pounds in my gravitional field (that's before breakfast. It gains a
little after that.).


On Feb 6, 1:58*pm, Phil J > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:19*am, wrote:
>
> > Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> > move forward
> > on the ground.
>
> Wrong. *Wrong. *Wrong.
>
> Fixed-wing aircraft can only achieve a stable taxi by keeping the CG
> between the forward and aft wheel points(WPs). * This is why it is so
> important in aircraft design that the WPs be placed correctly. * In
> the early days of aviation some designers placed all the wheels to one
> side of the CG, with the result that the aircraft was dynamically
> unstable in taxi. *Sadly, many lives were lost before this phenomenon
> was understood.
>
> If the CG is placed correctly in relation to the WPs, the aircraft
> establishes taxi by moving the Earth beneath it. *Turns are achieved
> by rotating the Earth. *Flight is achieved by dropping the Earth down,
> and a landing is made by lifting it back up. *Aerobatics involve
> combinations of lifting, dropping, and rotating.
>
> I hope this clears things up for everyone.
>
> Phil

[Gene Seibel]

On Feb 6, 11:24*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> > move forward on the ground.
>
> So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
> should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Flying Machine - http://pad39a.com/gene/
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> move forward
> on the ground.
>
>:-) I am feeling profound today...

So - how much was the bet for and how many posts do you need to win it?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
>> move forward on the ground.
>
> So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
> should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.
>

No, it takes a few minutes. Don't you watch star trek?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Space isn't frictionless dummy.
>
> Where does the friction come from?
>
Klingons, fjukkwit!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> And to answer your next post before you post it:
>>
>> What molecules?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space
>
> "While not being an actual perfect vacuum, outer space contains such
> sparse matter that it can be effectively thought of as one.


A bit like the inside of your skull.

Bertie

[Tom C]

> wrote in message
...
> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> move forward
> on the ground.
>
> :-) I am feeling profound today...
>

How do they get a cab?

Tom C

[terry]

On Feb 7, 6:00*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > And to answer your next post before you post it:
>
> > What molecules?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space
>
> "While not being an actual perfect vacuum, outer space contains such sparse
> matter that it can be effectively thought of as one. The pressure of
> interstellar space is on the order of 10 pPa (1×10-11 Pa)."
>
> So, no molecules. *And no friction.
>
> Even if you don't wish to consider the hard vacuum of space as perfect, with a
> pressure that is 10,000,000,000,000,000 times lower than that of Earth at sea
> level, the friction should be also that much lower, and thus the speed of a
> taxi should be trillions of times faster. *The speed of light is only fifteen
> million times faster than a 40-knot taxi, so nearly the speed of light might
> well be achieved long before any residual friction could have any effect.

The resistance is a function of the density of gas molecules not
pressure
density is related to pressure by
D=PM/RT
M=molecular wt
P=pressure
R=gas constant
T=temperature ( absolute )
ie the lower the temperature the higher the density
so what is the temperature in interestella space?

Resistance is also a function of the velocity squared.
think about how bit a number is c sqaured.

Terry
PPL Downunder

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote :
>
>> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
>> move forward on the ground.
>
> So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
> should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

The corollary to that would logically be that any object entering the
atmosphere from outer space would instantly decelerate to zero speed.

From this logically follows that any meteorites that succeed through the
atmosphere and hit Earth have an initial velocity faster than the speed of
light.

I think the meaning of logic got slighty warped as Mx's spacecraft passed
the most recent black hole. ;-)

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 11:51*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Molecules
>
> There aren't any molecules in space. *It's a hard vacuum.

A hard vacuum has lots of molecules. If you start going very fast,
they are going to hit you pretty hard. There is no such thing as
truly empty space...

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 12:02*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > On Feb 6, 9:24*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > writes:
> > > > Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> > > > move forward on the ground.
>
> > > So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
> > > should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.
>
> > No, it still takes energy to accelerate a mass, even in a frictionless
> > environment.
>
> But the original post said that aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce
> friction. *No mention of energy or force. *So if the statement is true,
> movement results from a lack of friction alone, so zero friction should
> produce infinite speed (or lightspeed if one allows the speed of light as an
> absolute upper limit).
>
> > However, space (especially near space) is not frictionless.
>
> Nor does friction produce acceleration. *QED.

Your post about airplanes flying stated that it was because of the
wings, no mention of energy or force, moron!

[Benjamin Dover]

wrote in news:f5468d8b-0d97-452a-babc-
:

> There is no such thing as truly empty space...

Sure there is. It is located between Mxsmanic's ears.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> Gee, where would the energy come from to cause the acceleration?

Exactly.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> The resistance is a function of the density of gas molecules not
> pressure
> density is related to pressure by
> D=PM/RT
> M=molecular wt
> P=pressure
> R=gas constant
> T=temperature ( absolute )
> ie the lower the temperature the higher the density
> so what is the temperature in interestella space?

The classic gas laws only work when a volume of gas is contained.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 2:22*pm, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> wrote in news:f5468d8b-0d97-452a-babc-
> :
>
> > *There is no such thing as truly empty space...
>
> Sure there is. *It is located between Mxsmanic's ears.

I stand corrected...

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Your post about airplanes flying stated that it was because of the
> wings, no mention of energy or force, moron!

What does that have to do with taxiing?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 12:06*pm, Tina > wrote:
> Gee, where would the energy come from to cause the acceleration?
>

Same place everything Anthony posts comes from, straight out of his
ass.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 2:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Your post about airplanes flying stated that it was because of the
> > wings, no mention of energy or force, moron!
>
> What does that have to do with taxiing?

You tell me, you posed the question.

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> The corollary to that would logically be that any object entering the
> atmosphere from outer space would instantly decelerate to zero speed.

Only with infinite friction.

> I think the meaning of logic got slighty warped as Mx's spacecraft passed
> the most recent black hole. ;-)

The statement that started this thread was fundamentally incorrect. I've
illustrated why.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Feb 6, 11:51 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>> Molecules
>> There aren't any molecules in space. It's a hard vacuum.
>
> A hard vacuum has lots of molecules. If you start going very fast,
> they are going to hit you pretty hard. There is no such thing as
> truly empty space...

Exactly, why do you think the Enterprise had the big deflector dish on it.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Feb 6, 12:06 pm, Tina > wrote:
>> Gee, where would the energy come from to cause the acceleration?
>>
>
> Same place everything Anthony posts comes from, straight out of his
> ass.

There is indeed an argument to be made for this post posterior
postulation post haste.

Assuming Mxsmanic on roller blades and a smooth surface, both Newton and
Chef Boy Ardee do theoretically address the possibility that eating X
amount of baked beans can be translated into Y amount of posterior
acceleration...considering the friction of the roller blades on the
surface and the opening size of Mxsmanic's posterior orifice of course.
I think the Calculus works.; Not at all sure about Mxsmanic however, as
I understand he doesn't work.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> terry writes:
>
>> The resistance is a function of the density of gas molecules not
>> pressure
>> density is related to pressure by
>> D=PM/RT
>> M=molecular wt
>> P=pressure
>> R=gas constant
>> T=temperature ( absolute )
>> ie the lower the temperature the higher the density
>> so what is the temperature in interestella space?
>
> The classic gas laws only work when a volume of gas is contained.

Then FART man......FART!!!!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[The Visitor]

Well a little while ago at my airport somebody tested that theory out.
It was a short ground roll, er, run. His first clue something was wrong
was it took so much power to taxi.

wrote:

> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> move forward
> on the ground.
>
> :-) I am feeling profound today...
>

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 2:42*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Snowbird writes:
> > The corollary to that would logically be that any object entering the
> > atmosphere from outer space would instantly decelerate to zero speed.
>
> Only with infinite friction.
>
> > I think the meaning of logic got slighty warped as Mx's spacecraft passed
> > the most recent black hole. ;-)
>
> The statement that started this thread was fundamentally incorrect. *I've
> illustrated why.

No you haven't you moron:

Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
move forward on the ground.

taxi: this word implies that the airplane is moving under its own
power.
move forward: this indicates that the airplane is in motion for the
above stated reason.

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking Tony.

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
>
>> The corollary to that would logically be that any object entering the
>> atmosphere from outer space would instantly decelerate to zero speed.
>
> Only with infinite friction.
>

I'm just applying your flavor of logic.

>> I think the meaning of logic got slighty warped as Mx's spacecraft passed
>> the most recent black hole. ;-)
>
> The statement that started this thread was fundamentally incorrect. I've
> illustrated why.

Nope. Show me a wheelless airplane taxiing. Skis don't count ;-)

[Jon]

On Feb 6, 4:41 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 6, 12:06 pm, Tina > wrote:
>
> > Gee, where would the energy come from to cause the acceleration?
>
> Same place everything Anthony posts comes from, straight out of his
> ass.

From the vacuum of his innerspace, which, due to the lack of friction,
flows unrestricted, ad-infinitum...

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message ...
> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> move forward
> on the ground.
>
> :-) I am feeling profound today...
>

They taxi because they want to get to the airport and catch a flight...

[Blueskies]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 9:24 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> > move forward on the ground.
>
> So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
> should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

No, it still takes energy to accelerate a mass, even in a frictionless
environment. However, it would not take energy to maintain velocity in
a friction free environment. However, space (especially near space) is
not frictionless.

-Robert



It seems this discussion is heating up...

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> move forward
> on the ground.
>
> :-) I am feeling profound today...
>

So, you thought that you should simply post a statement like that ...

Now, *see* what you've gone and done! :-)))

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 6, 8:19*am, wrote:
> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> move forward
> on the ground.
>
> :-) *I am feeling profound today...

No, airplane's taxi because they can.

-Robert

[Blueskies]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 8:19 am, wrote:
> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> move forward
> on the ground.
>
> :-) I am feeling profound today...

No, airplane's taxi because they can.

-Robert


Or is it because they must?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 11:24*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> > move forward on the ground.
>
> So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
> should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.

The only thread better than this one was the one where the guy wanted
to get a uniform because he'd just gotten his PPL.

[Phil J]

On Feb 6, 1:09*pm, Tina > wrote:
> Phil, to support your theory, I can tell you the earth weighs 130
> pounds in my gravitional field (that's before breakfast. It gains a
> little after that.).
>

I have been noticing that the Earth is getting heavier and heavier as
the years go by. I think something needs to be done about this Global
Bloating.

Phil

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You tell me, you posed the question.

No, I did not.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 4:39*pm, "Snowbird" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" wrote ...
>
>
>
> >> The corollary to that would logically be that any object entering the
> >> atmosphere from outer space would instantly decelerate to zero speed.
>
> > Only with infinite friction.
>
> I'm just applying your flavor of logic.
>
> >> I think the meaning of logic got slighty warped as Mx's spacecraft passed
> >> the most recent black hole. ;-)
>
> > The statement that started this thread was fundamentally incorrect. *I've
> > illustrated why.
>
> Nope. Show me a wheelless airplane taxiing. Skis don't count ;-)

How about floats though?

Has anyone considered the friction between floats and water?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 8:04*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > You tell me, you posed the question.
>
> No, I did not.

What object could ever be accelerated to the speed of light?

[Jim Logajan]

"Blueskies" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Feb 6, 8:19 am, wrote:
>> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
>> move forward
>> on the ground.
>>
>> :-) I am feeling profound today...
>
> No, airplane's taxi because they can.
>
> -Robert
>
>
> Or is it because they must?

Reporter: So tell us airplane, why do you taxi on the taxiway?
Airplane: Because it isn't air!

[d.g.s.]

On 2/6/2008 6:04 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> No, I did not.

Actually, you tedious lying idiot, you did. But since you employ your
usual dishonest method of editing the context out of posts to which you
reply, who can tell - unless, of course, one simply looks at the
posts in this thread?

[Snowbird]

> > > The statement that started this thread was fundamentally incorrect.
> > > I've
> > > illustrated why.
> >
> > Nope. Show me a wheelless airplane taxiing. Skis don't count ;-)
>
> How about floats though?
>
> Has anyone considered the friction between floats and water?

As far as I can see, the scope of the original posting was limited to
taxiing on the ground. It is of course debatable whether a layer of water
between the airplane and the ground, which in this context is more aptly
named the bottom, is influencing the amount of molecules in outer space. As
there have been no reports of floatplanes leaving the atmosphere, I let the
case rest.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 4:17 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 12:06 pm, Tina > wrote:
> >> Gee, where would the energy come from to cause the acceleration?
>
> > Same place everything Anthony posts comes from, straight out of his
> > ass.
>
> There is indeed an argument to be made for this post posterior
> postulation post haste.
>
> Assuming Mxsmanic on roller blades and a smooth surface, both Newton and
> Chef Boy Ardee do theoretically address the possibility that eating X
> amount of baked beans can be translated into Y amount of posterior
> acceleration...considering the friction of the roller blades on the
> surface and the opening size of Mxsmanic's posterior orifice of course.
> I think the Calculus works.; Not at all sure about Mxsmanic however, as
> I understand he doesn't work.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Well he could do it like this:
http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/small/HolyGrail062.jpg

Perhaps if he constructs a large wooden badger....

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 1:20 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > writes:
>
> >> Space isn't frictionless dummy.
>
> > Where does the friction come from?
>
> Klingons, fjukkwit!
>
> Bertie

So scrape them off dammit!

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 1:20 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > writes:
>
> >> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> >> move forward on the ground.
>
> > So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
> > should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.
>
> No, it takes a few minutes. Don't you watch star trek?
>
> Bertie

It actually depends on the volume and pitch of the 'rrorrr-rrOORRR'
sound and angle at which Mr. Scott finds himself clinging to the fence
in front of the engines.

Smoke escaping out of various panels on the bridge seems to help as
well.

You sure this isn't a GM product we're talking about here?

[ManhattanMan]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> Exactly, why do you think the Enterprise had the big deflector dish
> on it.

UFB's????

Unidentified Flying Bugs

[Jon]

On Feb 6, 6:53 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
> It seems this discussion is heating up...

Attributable to friction, of course ;)

[[email protected]]

On Feb 7, 9:31*am, "Snowbird" > wrote:
> > > > The statement that started this thread was fundamentally incorrect.
> > > > I've
> > > > illustrated why.
>
> > > Nope. Show me a wheelless airplane taxiing. Skis don't count ;-)
>
> > How about floats though?
>
> > Has anyone considered the friction between floats and water?
>
> As far as I can see, the scope of the original posting was limited to
> taxiing on the ground. It is of course debatable whether a layer of water
> between the airplane and the ground, which in this context is more aptly
> named the bottom, is influencing the amount of molecules in outer space. As
> there have been no reports of floatplanes leaving the atmosphere, I let the
> case rest.

Wasn't it a floatplane that was looking for the other three in the
Bermuda triangle?

-Kees

[Al G[_1_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Blueskies" > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Feb 6, 8:19 am, wrote:
>>> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
>>> move forward
>>> on the ground.
>>>
>>> :-) I am feeling profound today...
>>
>> No, airplane's taxi because they can.
>>
>> -Robert
>>
>>
>> Or is it because they must?
>
> Reporter: So tell us airplane, why do you taxi on the taxiway?
> Airplane: Because it isn't air!

To prove to the simulator that it COULD be done.

Al G

[terry]

On Feb 7, 8:39*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > The resistance is a function of the density of gas molecules not
> > pressure
> > density is related to pressure by
> > D=PM/RT
> > M=molecular wt
> > P=pressure
> > R=gas constant
> > T=temperature ( absolute )
> > ie the lower the temperature the higher the density
> > so what is the temperature in interestella space?
>
> The classic gas laws only work when a volume of gas is contained.

Oh, Dear does that mean I cant really use the equation above for
calculating the air density in the atmosphere I am flying in?. Geez
its a wonder I havent killed myself. I will go and report myself to
CASA ( FAA equivalent downunder) today. I want my money back on
that phys chem degree I paid for too.
Terry
PPL Downunder

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

terry wrote:

> The resistance is a function of the density of gas molecules not
> pressure
> density is related to pressure by
> D=PM/RT
> M=molecular wt
> P=pressure
> R=gas constant
> T=temperature ( absolute )
> ie the lower the temperature the higher the density
> so what is the temperature in interestella space?

estimates are from between 3 - 20 K. But with Global Warming who knows.

[george]

On Feb 8, 8:15 am, terry > wrote:

> Oh, Dear does that mean I cant really use the equation above for
> calculating the air density in the atmosphere I am flying in?. Geez
> its a wonder I havent killed myself. I will go and report myself to
> CASA ( FAA equivalent downunder) today. I want my money back on
> that phys chem degree I paid for too.


:-)

Mxsmanic doesn't have to worry about taxying .
The power cord holds the computor desk down..

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 12:02 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> But the original post said that aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce
> friction. No mention of energy or force. So if the statement is true,
> movement results from a lack of friction alone, so zero friction should
> produce infinite speed (or lightspeed if one allows the speed of light as an
> absolute upper limit).
>
> > However, space (especially near space) is not frictionless.

So, would having wheels reduce the friction in near space?

Dan

[Ricky]

On Feb 6, 12:51*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Molecules
>
> There aren't any molecules in space. *It's a hard vacuum.

You are wrong again. Read this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space

Ricky

[Judah]

wrote in news:69e5d860-7689-4422-94e6-66073069c012
@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> move forward on the ground.

Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because the bus takes way too long.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> ... it's not fair to pick on the incompentent...

Are you being facetious?

[terry]

On Feb 8, 6:31*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> terry wrote:
> > The resistance is a function of the density of gas molecules not
> > pressure
> > density is related to pressure by
> > D=PM/RT
> > M=molecular wt
> > P=pressure
> > R=gas constant
> > T=temperature ( absolute )
> > ie the lower the temperature the higher the density
> > so what is the temperature in interestella space?
>
> estimates are from between 3 - 20 K. But with Global Warming who knows.

yes, substitute 3 for T and 1 E-11 for P in the above equation, use
2 E-3 for MW ( any gas in interstellar space is likely to be
predominantly hydrogen, and you get 8E-16 kg/m3 for density, Very
small indeed, but then the resistance this provides to a spacecraft
is proportional to density. area. v squared.
when you chuck in a v that is anywhere near the speed of light and
square it, you start to get numbers that are no longer negligible.

[[email protected]]

>
> So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
> should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.


Some haphazard math here.. if space is indeed entirely frictionless,
which I highly doubt, then to accelerate a body of weight 1kg (2.2
lbs) to the speed of light (using a constant force of 1N (or 1 m/sec2
acceleration) would require a distance of 4.5*(10^16) meters or about
45000000000000 km which is about 300 billion miles. The work done/
energy needed would be about 450 trillion joules.
The time needed to achieve this feat would be about 9.5 yrs.. so no
its not instantaneous ;)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 6, 1:20 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > writes:
>>
>> >> Space isn't frictionless dummy.
>>
>> > Where does the friction come from?
>>
>> Klingons, fjukkwit!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> So scrape them off dammit!
>

It's life Jim, but not a we know it!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 6, 1:20 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > writes:
>>
>> >> Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as
>> >> they move forward on the ground.
>>
>> > So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer
>> > space should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.
>>
>> No, it takes a few minutes. Don't you watch star trek?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> It actually depends on the volume and pitch of the 'rrorrr-rrOORRR'
> sound and angle at which Mr. Scott finds himself clinging to the fence
> in front of the engines.
>
> Smoke escaping out of various panels on the bridge seems to help as
> well.
>
> You sure this isn't a GM product we're talking about here?
>

Bwwahwhahwhahw!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> The resistance is a function of the density of gas molecules not
>> pressure
>> density is related to pressure by
>> D=PM/RT
>> M=molecular wt
>> P=pressure
>> R=gas constant
>> T=temperature ( absolute )
>> ie the lower the temperature the higher the density
>> so what is the temperature in interestella space?
>
> The classic gas laws only work when a volume of gas is contained.
>

N ope

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Clark writes:
>
>> ... it's not fair to pick on the incompentent...
>
> Are you being facetious?
>

Are you being a tit?

bertie

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> All the gas laves can be combined to:
>
> PV=nRT and this is true everywhere. It's an energy equation and so can
> be applied to any volume.

Set V to infinity (an unconfined gas) and solve for the rest.

[Tina]

It would take infinite amount of energy to accelerate any non-zero
mass to the speed of light.


On Feb 9, 12:37*am, wrote:
> > So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
> > should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.
>
> Some haphazard math here.. if space is indeed entirely frictionless,
> which I highly doubt, then to accelerate a body of weight 1kg (2.2
> lbs) to the speed of light (using a constant force of 1N (or 1 m/sec2
> acceleration) would require a distance of 4.5*(10^16) meters or about
> 45000000000000 km which is about 300 billion miles. The work done/
> energy needed would be about 450 trillion joules.
> The time needed to achieve this feat would be about 9.5 yrs.. so no
> its not instantaneous ;)

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 10, 4:36*pm, Tina > wrote:
> It would take infinite amount of energy to accelerate any non-zero
> mass to the speed of light.
>
Ah an oft stated idea but why? Is E not 0.5MC^2 ?

Where's the Ken when we need it?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 10, 4:33*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> WingFlaps writes:
> > All the gas laves can be combined to:
>
> > PV=nRT and this is true everywhere. It's an energy equation and so can
> > be applied to any volume.
>
> Set V to infinity (an unconfined gas) and solve for the rest.

n would then be infinite too for any existant gas density so you've
set up infinity=infinty. Such insight as you posses blinds me with its
brilliance.

Cheers

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
WingFlaps > wrote:

> > It would take infinite amount of energy to accelerate any non-zero
> > mass to the speed of light.
> >
> Ah an oft stated idea but why? Is E not 0.5MC^2 ?

<reaching way way Way WAY back into college physics> let's see if I remember
this correctly... because mass increases with velocity. If pressed, I may
even be able to find the formula in my quantum text.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> WingFlaps writes:

> > All the gas laves can be combined to:
> >
> > PV=nRT and this is true everywhere. It's an energy equation and so can
> > be applied to any volume.

> Set V to infinity (an unconfined gas) and solve for the rest.

Since there is no infinite volume, what would be the point?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

> It would take infinite amount of energy to accelerate any non-zero
> mass to the speed of light.
>

True, I just wanted to stay within the realms of Newtonian mechanics
for simplicity because the poster seemed to imply that a body will
reach a velocity of c if there is no friction instantaneously..

[Blanche]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 12:06 pm, Tina > wrote:
>>> Gee, where would the energy come from to cause the acceleration?
>>>
>>
>> Same place everything Anthony posts comes from, straight out of his
>> ass.
>
>There is indeed an argument to be made for this post posterior
>postulation post haste.
>
>Assuming Mxsmanic on roller blades and a smooth surface, both Newton and
>Chef Boy Ardee do theoretically address the possibility that eating X
>amount of baked beans can be translated into Y amount of posterior
>acceleration...considering the friction of the roller blades on the
>surface and the opening size of Mxsmanic's posterior orifice of course.
>I think the Calculus works.; Not at all sure about Mxsmanic however, as
>I understand he doesn't work.

[*phlbbbbt* *splutter* *splat*]

Rats...time to get another keyboard. This one has chocolate malt
all over it.

[Blanche]

Airplanes taxi to get from one side of the airport to the other, much
like the chicken crossing the road.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Since there is no infinite volume, what would be the point?

The atmosphere of the Earth is an infinite volume, and in fact it demonstrates
rather well that the combined laws don't apply in that case. Pressure is
largely uncorrelated with temperature, for example.

[terry]

On Feb 10, 5:53*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Since there is no infinite volume, what would be the point?
>
> The atmosphere of the Earth is an infinite volume, and in fact it demonstrates
> rather well that the combined laws don't apply in that case. *Pressure is
> largely uncorrelated with temperature, for example.

Go back to the post you originally made the riduculous comment on and
tell us why

D =PM/ RT does not apply in the Earths atmosphere for any given local
measurement of pressure and temperature.
Terry

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Since there is no infinite volume, what would be the point?

> The atmosphere of the Earth is an infinite volume, and in fact it demonstrates
> rather well that the combined laws don't apply in that case. Pressure is
> largely uncorrelated with temperature, for example.

Neither the atmosphere of the Earth nor the universe are infinite.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[terry]

On Feb 10, 5:53*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Since there is no infinite volume, what would be the point?
>
> The atmosphere of the Earth is an infinite volume, and in fact it demonstrates
> rather well that the combined laws don't apply in that case. *Pressure is
> largely uncorrelated with temperature, for example.

Half knowledge can be a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. The fact
that you cannot correlate pressure and temperature in the atmosphere
does not mean the gas laws do not apply. It just means that the
number of molecules in a given volume of the atmophere , ie density
varies with height with time, with winds etc. At any point in the
atmosphere ( or in space) the density of any block of space over which
the temperature and pressure can be considered to be constant, can be
calculated accurately using the gas equation

density =PM/RT

You see the fact that the volume of the atmophere or of space is
infinite is quite irrelvant because nobody wants to know what the
average density of the whole atmophere is ( which of course will
approach zero depending on your definition of where the atmsophere
actually ends) . But a pilot might want to know what the density is
in a particular layer of air where the temperature and pressure are
reasonably constant, say at an airport for example that he is going to
take off from and wants to know whether his aircrafts performance will
be sufficient to takeoff and clear a bunch of trees at the end of the
runway.

And in the case of the space example, you quoted a pressure of 1e-11
Pa, if the temperature is 3 deg C then again the density will be able
to be calculated perfectly well for that part of space for which that
temp and pressure apply, the fact that the temperature and pressure in
some other part of infinite space is different,is irrelevant , the gas
laws apply everywhere ( with appropriate modifications for non ideal
behaviour at very high temps and pressures but I wouldnt worry about
those if I were you, try to understand the basics first)
Terry
PPL Downunder
.

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 10, 5:00*pm, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *WingFlaps > wrote:
> > > It would take infinite amount of energy to accelerate any non-zero
> > > mass to the speed of light.
>
> > Ah an oft stated idea but why? Is E not 0.5MC^2 ?
>
> <reaching way way Way WAY back into college physics> *let's see if I remember
> this correctly... because mass increases with velocity. * If pressed, I may
> even be able to find the formula in my quantum text.
>

Yes, that's it and the mass is "relativistic". No quantum theories
needed. The idea is that mass and energy are the same thing, so as you
accumulate velocity mass goes up so it takes more and more energy to
accelerate. Strangley, there's no reason why you can't go faster than
light (v=c is the only forbidden velocity) and in that universe MX
becomes impresses us more and more with every post while Dudley and
the rest of us forget how to fly... Now there's a thought.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 10, 7:53*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>
> The atmosphere of the Earth is an infinite volume, and in fact it demonstrates
> rather well that the combined laws don't apply in that case. *Pressure is
> largely uncorrelated with temperature, for example.

So how do you explain the rather well known lapse rate?

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps writes:
>
>> All the gas laves can be combined to:
>>
>> PV=nRT and this is true everywhere. It's an energy equation and so can
>> be applied to any volume.
>
> Set V to infinity (an unconfined gas) and solve for the rest.
>

Bwawahwhahwahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhswhahw hahwhahwhahwh!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Since there is no infinite volume, what would be the point?
>
> The atmosphere of the Earth is an infinite volume, and in fact it
> demonstrates rather well that the combined laws don't apply in that
> case. Pressure is largely uncorrelated with temperature, for example.
>

Nope


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Neither the atmosphere of the Earth nor the universe are infinite.

We don't know if they are infinite or not.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> You see the fact that the volume of the atmophere or of space is
> infinite is quite irrelvant because nobody wants to know what the
> average density of the whole atmophere is ( which of course will
> approach zero depending on your definition of where the atmsophere
> actually ends).

It is very highly relevant. If you increase the temperature of the
atmosphere, for example, the pressure does not rise, because nothing
constrains the atmosphere--it simply expands. Atmospheric pressure comes from
gravity, which is a constant, and not from any constraints applied to the
volume of air, of which there are none. In the highest portions of the
atmosphere, the temperature rises to several thousand degrees, but the
pressure remains extremely low. At the surface, you might see variations in
absolute temperature of 1/3, but you won't see variations in pressure anywhere
near that magnitude.

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> So how do you explain the rather well known lapse rate?

It depends on which lapse rate you have in mind.

Solar heating at the surface produces a static temperature gradient, the
environmental lapse rate. Light to which the atmosphere is transparent is
absorbed at the surface and converted to heat. Part of this is reradiated,
but at lower frequencies that may be reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere,
the rest heats the air at the surface directly by conduction. So, overall,
the air is always warmest at the surface. There are some anomalies higher in
the atmosphere.

Parcels of air that rise in the atmosphere will cool as the pressure in the
atmosphere drops, and this is responsible the adiabatic lapse rate.

In both cases, the correlation is between temperature and altitude, not
temperature and pressure.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Neither the atmosphere of the Earth nor the universe are infinite.

> We don't know if they are infinite or not.

Babbling nonsense.

Current estimates are the universe is about 160 billion light-years
in diameter.

If the universe isn't infinite, nothing in it can be either.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:

> > You see the fact that the volume of the atmophere or of space is
> > infinite is quite irrelvant because nobody wants to know what the
> > average density of the whole atmophere is ( which of course will
> > approach zero depending on your definition of where the atmsophere
> > actually ends).

> It is very highly relevant. If you increase the temperature of the
> atmosphere, for example, the pressure does not rise, because nothing
> constrains the atmosphere--it simply expands. Atmospheric pressure comes from
> gravity, which is a constant, and not from any constraints applied to the
> volume of air, of which there are none. In the highest portions of the
> atmosphere, the temperature rises to several thousand degrees, but the
> pressure remains extremely low. At the surface, you might see variations in
> absolute temperature of 1/3, but you won't see variations in pressure anywhere
> near that magnitude.

Nope.

The ideal gas law doesn't apply over the entire Earth's atmosphere
because the entire atmosphere isn't in equilibrium.

It does apply locally where equilibrium can be approximated.

In the highest portions of the atmosphere, the ideal gas law has
significant error because the molecular size becomes significant,
in which case one must use something like the van der Waals equation.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> If the universe isn't infinite, nothing in it can be either.

sure, if you constrain the question to 3-d, unless you consider something
infinitely small...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> WingFlaps writes:

> > So how do you explain the rather well known lapse rate?

> It depends on which lapse rate you have in mind.

> Solar heating at the surface produces a static temperature gradient, the
> environmental lapse rate. Light to which the atmosphere is transparent is
> absorbed at the surface and converted to heat. Part of this is reradiated,
> but at lower frequencies that may be reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere,
> the rest heats the air at the surface directly by conduction. So, overall,
> the air is always warmest at the surface. There are some anomalies higher in
> the atmosphere.

> Parcels of air that rise in the atmosphere will cool as the pressure in the
> atmosphere drops, and this is responsible the adiabatic lapse rate.

> In both cases, the correlation is between temperature and altitude, not
> temperature and pressure.

Nope.

Air molecules don't have altimeters to tell them the altitude.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Neither the atmosphere of the Earth nor the universe are infinite.
>
> We don't know if they are infinite or not.
>

I do, send me $25 and I'll tell you.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> You see the fact that the volume of the atmophere or of space is
>> infinite is quite irrelvant because nobody wants to know what the
>> average density of the whole atmophere is ( which of course will
>> approach zero depending on your definition of where the atmsophere
>> actually ends).
>
> It is very highly relevant. If you increase the temperature of the
> atmosphere, for example, the pressure does not rise, because nothing
> constrains the atmosphere--it simply expands.

Wow, a truly magnificent lack of understanding of how weather works to add
to all the other dumb feathers in your tinfoil hat.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps writes:
>
>> So how do you explain the rather well known lapse rate?
>
> It depends on which lapse rate you have in mind.
>

The one which states that as the temperature rises, the two molecules in
your head take a siesta.

Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 11, 5:47*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> WingFlaps writes:
> > So how do you explain the rather well known lapse rate?
>

>
> In both cases, the correlation is between temperature and altitude, not
> temperature and pressure.

Are you saying the air knows how high it is? That's amazing 'cos I use
a sensitive pressure meter to tell me my altitude!
Sounds like you are BS'ing to cover a mistake to me.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:119b347f-0e1d-4af3-a695-
:

> On Feb 11, 5:47*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> WingFlaps writes:
>> > So how do you explain the rather well known lapse rate?
>>
>
>>
>> In both cases, the correlation is between temperature and altitude, not
>> temperature and pressure.
>
> Are you saying the air knows how high it is?

Qustin is: does Anthony?


Bertie

[terry]

On Feb 11, 3:40*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > You see the fact that the volume of the atmophere or of space is
> > infinite is quite irrelvant because nobody wants to know what the
> > average density of the whole atmophere is ( which of course will
> > approach zero depending on your definition of where the atmsophere
> > actually ends).
>
> It is very highly relevant. *If you increase the temperature of the
> atmosphere, for example, the pressure does not rise, because nothing
> constrains the atmosphere--it simply expands. *Atmospheric pressure comes from
> gravity, which is a constant, and not from any constraints applied to the
> volume of air, of which there are none. *In the highest portions of the
> atmosphere, the temperature rises to several thousand degrees, but the
> pressure remains extremely low. *At the surface, you might see variations in
> absolute temperature of 1/3, but you won't see variations in pressure anywhere
> near that magnitude.

Did I say the pressure would rise if you increased the temperature?.
For the last time, if you know the temperature and pressure you know
the density,. for gods sake, gets some help with your attention
problem.... or go away
terry

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Babbling nonsense.
>
> Current estimates are the universe is about 160 billion light-years
> in diameter.
>
> If the universe isn't infinite, nothing in it can be either.

As I've said, we don't know if the universe is infinite or not.

It's interesting that anyone would criticize me for making assertions about
aviation when others cheerfully make assertions about the very nature of the
universe.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Air molecules don't have altimeters to tell them the altitude.

Air molecules in a tank don't have rulers to tell them the dimensions of the
tank, either.

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> Are you saying the air knows how high it is?

No.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Babbling nonsense.
>>
>> Current estimates are the universe is about 160 billion light-years
>> in diameter.
>>
>> If the universe isn't infinite, nothing in it can be either.
>
> As I've said, we don't know if the universe is infinite or not.
>

> It's interesting that anyone would criticize me for making assertions
> about aviation when others cheerfully make assertions about the very
> nature of the universe.
>

You don't make assertations. You pull things out of your ass.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Air molecules don't have altimeters to tell them the altitude.
>
> Air molecules in a tank don't have rulers to tell them the dimensions
> of the tank, either.
>

Yes, they do.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps writes:
>
>> Are you saying the air knows how high it is?
>
> No.
>

Wrong/

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Did I say the pressure would rise if you increased the temperature?

If it follows the combined laws, it will. But in the case of the atmosphere,
it doesn't, because the volume of the atmosphere is not constrained, and the
source of atmospheric pressure is gravity, not the random kinetic energy of
air molecules.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> Did I say the pressure would rise if you increased the temperature?
>
> If it follows the combined laws, it will. But in the case of the
> atmosphere, it doesn't, because the volume of the atmosphere is not
> constrained, and the source of atmospheric pressure is gravity, not
> the random kinetic energy of air molecules.
>

Nope

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Babbling nonsense.
> >
> > Current estimates are the universe is about 160 billion light-years
> > in diameter.
> >
> > If the universe isn't infinite, nothing in it can be either.

> As I've said, we don't know if the universe is infinite or not.

Who is "we"?

Do you have a French rat in your pocket?

> It's interesting that anyone would criticize me for making assertions about
> aviation when others cheerfully make assertions about the very nature of the
> universe.

Cosmologists abandonded the infinite universe theory decades ago.

Try turning off the computer and reading a few real books.

Oh, I forget, you only have real books if someone donates them to
your begging list.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Air molecules don't have altimeters to tell them the altitude.

> Air molecules in a tank don't have rulers to tell them the dimensions of the
> tank, either.

No, they don't.

Too bad you can't understand why that is irrelevant.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:

> > Did I say the pressure would rise if you increased the temperature?

> If it follows the combined laws, it will. But in the case of the atmosphere,
> it doesn't, because the volume of the atmosphere is not constrained, and the
> source of atmospheric pressure is gravity, not the random kinetic energy of
> air molecules.

Babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Who is "we"?

Mankind as a whole.

> Do you have a French rat in your pocket?

No.

> Cosmologists abandonded the infinite universe theory decades ago.

Cosmologists regularly change their mind, and a theory is not necessarily
reality.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Who is "we"?
>
> Mankind as a whole.

Translation, you and the fungus on your yoghurt.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Who is "we"?

> Mankind as a whole.

Trivially shown to be not true.

> > Do you have a French rat in your pocket?

> No.

Are you sure?

> > Cosmologists abandonded the infinite universe theory decades ago.

> Cosmologists regularly change their mind, and a theory is not necessarily
> reality.

A change in theory is caused by observation and measurement; those have
caused the infinite universe theory to be abandonded.

Do you have better observations and measurement?

If not, you are just babbling.

Again.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 6, 5:53*pm, Clark > wrote:
> "Snowbird" > wrote in news:cGqqj.484$aX.475
> @read4.inet.fi:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mxsmanic" wrote ...
>
> >>> The corollary to that would logically be that any object entering the
> >>> atmosphere from outer space would instantly decelerate to zero speed.
>
> >> Only with infinite friction.
>
> > I'm just applying your flavor of logic.
>
> >>> I think the meaning of logic got slighty warped as Mx's spacecraft passed
> >>> the most recent black hole. ;-)
>
> >> The statement that started this thread was fundamentally incorrect. *I've
> >> illustrated why.
>
> > Nope. Show me a wheelless airplane taxiing. Skis don't count ;-)
>
> Would a PBY on the water do?
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Now, that's a beautiful plane. I fell in love with that plane ever
since I watched Jaque Cousteau. I fell in love with the Hughes 300
helicopter ever since I watched Jack 'what's his name' of Mutual of
Omaha.

If I ever win the lottery, the PBY would be my traveling machine for
sure.

Wil

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 6, 7:53*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 6, 11:24*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > writes:
> > > Fixed-wing aircraft taxi because their wheels reduce friction as they
> > > move forward on the ground.
>
> > So, logically, spacecraft in the frictionless environment of outer space
> > should immediately accelerate to the speed of light.
>
> The only thread better than this one was the one where the guy wanted
> to get a uniform because he'd just gotten his PPL.

He almost convinced me to want one too. lol NOT! A flight suit and a
pair of NOMEX gloves would be cool though, well maybe an A-2 jacket
and a pilots' Ray Ban.

Wil

[terry]

On Feb 11, 9:07*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Did I say the pressure would rise if you increased the temperature?
>
> If it follows the combined laws, it will. *But in the case of the atmosphere,
> it doesn't, because the volume of the atmosphere is not constrained, and the
> source of atmospheric pressure is gravity, not the random kinetic energy of
> air molecules.

For everyone else following this thread, dont worry I am not crazy, I
am just testing a theory that it is possible to teach Msx something.
So far I must admit I am a litte discouraged.
But I will just persevere for a little longer to test my teaching
skills. . Now Mxs before you take off in your simulated Baron,
do you check the takeoff performance figures in the simulated flight
manual versus the lenght of runway at your simulated departure
airport? Have you noticed they are a function of a thing called
density altitude.? Do you know how to work out what your density
altitude is ? Real pilots do this if there is any doubt they might
not have enough distance to clear the runway or any obstacles, and
since you are so obsessed with manufacturing pretended reality I am
sure you would want to be doing this also. If you did this what
you should have realised is that you are relying on the fact that the
density of the atmosphere at the particular point you are at (ie
your simulated airfield at the particular simulated temperature and
pressure conditions ) is determined only by 3 things. 1. the
temperature, 2 the pressure, 3 the chemical compositon of the
atmosphere ( ie the average molecular weight which is generally
assumed to 28.84 except for the extra dilligent who will correct for
humidity ). And the relationship between them? I think I have
already told you about 3 times density = PM/RT and where does this
equation come from? directly from the universal gas law PV=nRT by
substituting m/M for n .
Since you dont have access to a real airplane ( thank god) you could
even calculate the density of the air in your cockpit ( apartment)
with a thermometer and a barometer using the above equation. I
assure you if you do it carefully you can get a very accurate value of
the air density. ( if you must you could even open your window to
simulate an infinite volume! ).
If your answer is not something like 1.22 kg/m3 its probably because
you have underestimated M by not allowing for the methane percentage
in your apartment atmosphere.

You see your probelm is that you have this mistaken belief that the
gas law is only useful to describe a given bunch of molecule in a
balloon, probably something you picked up in grade school. but what
it really does is illustrate the point that gas molecules occupy a
volume of space that is dependant only on their number , pressure and
temperature. The forces that lead to whatever pressure and
temperature conditions exist is another subject, called meterology.
Instead of thinking that increasing the temperature should increase
the pressure ( as it would if you were talking about a fixed number of
molcules in a rigid tank) you could just as easily think that
increasing the temperature reduces the number of molecules per unit
volume, in an atmosphere where the air can expand and thus the
pressure stays relatively constant.. Either example can use the same
equation PV=nRT to describe what is happening.
Terry
PPL Downunder

[terry]

On Feb 11, 6:20*pm, Clark > wrote:
> terry > wrote in news:5f088abd-cbda-4dba-a3dd-
> :
>
> [snip happened]
>
> Not to detract from your lecture but up in the northern hemisphere we tend to
> use 28.96 as the molecular weight of air. Perhaps some of the lighter
> molecules settle out in the south? :-)

I shouldnt have been so precise. its just a number I use frequently in
my work that allows for 0.83 v/v % water.( an average value for my
neck of the woods)

> After all is said and done, perhaps someone should ask MX to 'splain why
> sonic velocity in the atmosphere depends only on temperature...

good luck with that one!

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Now Mxs before you take off in your simulated Baron,
> do you check the takeoff performance figures in the simulated flight
> manual versus the lenght of runway at your simulated departure
> airport?

No. According to the POH (the sim version and the real version are the same),
4500 feet is enough for any situation, so as long as I have at least 4500
feet, I'm fine.

> Do you know how to work out what your density altitude is?

I have a calculator and an E6-B to work things out should that really become
necessary.

> Real pilots do this if there is any doubt they might
> not have enough distance to clear the runway or any obstacles, and
> since you are so obsessed with manufacturing pretended reality I am
> sure you would want to be doing this also.

I stay close enough to the center of the envelope that this is never a factor.
It's a lot easier than pushing the envelope and having to do a truckload of
calculations before every flight just to see if I can squeak by.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 9:47 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> So, overall,
> the air is always warmest at the surface. There are some anomalies higher in
> the atmosphere.

Not always. Not at all always. We frequently get inversions where the
air 1000' feet up is much warmer than that on the surface. Inversions
are very common here, and I would imagine they're common most anywhere
away from the equator. We've had days here, in the winter, where we've
left the ground where the temp is -20°C, and found -18°C at 3000' agl.
Often I find the winds howling at 25 or 30 knots just 200 feet above
the surface, while the wind on the ground is zilch and the temp is 25
degrees colder.
"Always" just doesn't deal with reality. Works on a sim, I
suppose.

> Parcels of air that rise in the atmosphere will cool as the pressure in the
> atmosphere drops, and this is responsible the adiabatic lapse rate.

If you'd ever studied meteorology (Commercial Pilot
groundschool) you'd know that the temp falls with altitude until we
reach the tropopause. Then it starts rising until we reach the
stratopause, where it starts to fall again through the mesosphere, and
once we reach the thermosphere it rises again and keeps on rising,
though the density is so low that the actual heat content is minimal.
See this:
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/FIG01_019.JPG

> In both cases, the correlation is between temperature and altitude, not
> temperature and pressure.

If pressure rises, so does temperature. The air coming down
off the Rockies here rises in temperature as its pressure rises in the
descent. This is part of the chinook phenomenon's equation. The rest
of that equation has to do with condensation of the vapor on the west
side of the mountains, which releases the heat of evaporation back to
the atmosphere so that the air's temperature fall is minimal as the
air is forced upward by the terrain. So when it gets to 3000' on this
side, it's MUCH warmer and drier than it was at 3000' on the west
side. The snow evaporates (sublimates) in that warm, dry air. It
doesn't have a chance to melt.
The atmosphere is much more complex than you think.

Dan

[terry]

On Feb 12, 5:26*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
snip
> I stay close enough to the center of the envelope that this is never a factor.
> It's a lot easier than pushing the envelope and having to do a truckload of
> calculations before every flight just to see if I can squeak by.

come on live a little, push that envelope, you only live once. dont
die wondering
Whats the worst thing that could happen?
Terry

[terry]

On Feb 12, 5:26*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
snip

Terry wrote a lot of things which you have not commented on in your
reply. Do we take that you have finally realised you were talking
crap about the gas laws not applying in the atmosphere or in space?
Terry

[Benjamin Dover]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> WingFlaps writes:
>>
>>> So how do you explain the rather well known lapse rate?
>>
>> It depends on which lapse rate you have in mind.
>>
>
> The one which states that as the temperature rises, the two molecules in
> your head take a siesta.
>
> Bertie
>

When did his intelligence double to two molecules?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I stay close enough to the center of the envelope that this is never a factor.
> It's a lot easier than pushing the envelope and having to do a truckload of
> calculations before every flight just to see if I can squeak by.

Real pilots do the "truckload of calculations" all the time.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 12:37 pm, wrote:
> We've had days here, in the winter, where we've
> left the ground where the temp is -20°C, and found -18°C at 3000' agl.

My mistake. It was -20°C on the ground and +18°C at 3000' agl.
A 38° difference. A difference in the "wrong" direction.


Dan

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> come on live a little, push that envelope, you only live once.

There are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.

You sound very much like the type of pilot that the FAA warns about.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Terry wrote a lot of things which you have not commented on in your
> reply. Do we take that you have finally realised you were talking
> crap about the gas laws not applying in the atmosphere or in space?

I didn't bother to read the rest. I'm not sure who "we" might be, but Terry
can certainly take it anyway that Terry wants.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Real pilots do the "truckload of calculations" all the time.

Some do, some don't.

Here's an example of a real pilot who not only skipped the calculations, but
flew way too close to the wire:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-8-12-Overloaded-172.wmv

Jay has numerous other examples in the collection on his Web site.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> terry writes:
>
>> come on live a little, push that envelope, you only live once.
>
> There are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.

Terry is another matter, but as for your analogy, you are incorrect.
There most certainly are old bold pilots.
The trick in flying isn't the avoidance of bold action, in fact the
reverse is true.
The trick is in knowing when to be bold and when not to be. Those who
know the difference are the ones who become "old, bold pilots".


--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Not always. Not at all always.

That's why I said "overall." It's a general rule, not an absolute rule.

> "Always" just doesn't deal with reality. Works on a sim, I
> suppose.

Odd that you saw this word, but not the other one.

> If you'd ever studied meteorology (Commercial Pilot
> groundschool) you'd know that the temp falls with altitude until we
> reach the tropopause. Then it starts rising until we reach the
> stratopause, where it starts to fall again through the mesosphere, and
> once we reach the thermosphere it rises again and keeps on rising,
> though the density is so low that the actual heat content is minimal.

Yes. I had previously alluded to this.

> If pressure rises, so does temperature.

Then why is the atmosphere hottest in areas of extremely low pressure?

> The atmosphere is much more complex than you think.

I didn't comment on its complexity.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> My mistake. It was -20°C on the ground and +18°C at 3000' agl.
> A 38° difference. A difference in the "wrong" direction.

So the pressure must have been much higher at 3000 feet, according to the
reasoning given in your previous post.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Real pilots do the "truckload of calculations" all the time.

> Some do, some don't.

No, most do.

The small percentage that don't become the subject of an NTSB report.

Of course none of this makes any difference when you are play flying.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[terry]

On Feb 12, 1:32*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > terry writes:
>
> >> come on live a little, push that envelope, you only live once.
>
> > There are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.
>
> Terry is another matter, but as for your analogy, you are incorrect.
> There most certainly are old bold pilots.
> The trick in flying isn't the avoidance of bold action, in fact the
> reverse is true.
> The trick is in knowing when to be bold and when not to be. Those who
> know the difference are the ones who become "old, bold pilots".
>
Terry could be an old bold pilot if he wanted to be, because like many
of us weekend warriors we started old!. But I can assure you he plans
to be very old.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Terry is another matter, but as for your analogy, you are incorrect.
> There most certainly are old bold pilots.
> The trick in flying isn't the avoidance of bold action, in fact the
> reverse is true.
> The trick is in knowing when to be bold and when not to be. Those who
> know the difference are the ones who become "old, bold pilots".

I didn't invent the saying.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> No, most do.

What percentage is that?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > No, most do.

> What percentage is that?

A large one as is obvious from the NTSB data.

Feel free to use the NTSB web site to generate a number with six significant
digits on your time.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Terry is another matter, but as for your analogy, you are incorrect.
>> There most certainly are old bold pilots.
>> The trick in flying isn't the avoidance of bold action, in fact the
>> reverse is true.
>> The trick is in knowing when to be bold and when not to be. Those who
>> know the difference are the ones who become "old, bold pilots".
>
> I didn't invent the saying.

No one said you did. You just used the quote as a declarative sentence
that indicates clearly to the person you posted it to that you
understand the truth of the statement's meaning when in actuality both
the statement and you are incorrect.
So instead of just not understanding the statement is incorrect, you
have compounded the error by using it to make a point that was
incorrect; so you're wrong on two counts.
Good job!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> A large one as is obvious from the NTSB data.

So you don't know.

[John[_13_]]

No we are just not willing to tell you :)
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> A large one as is obvious from the NTSB data.
>
> So you don't know.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > A large one as is obvious from the NTSB data.

> So you don't know.

Twisting the words doesn't mean you are correct.

Unlike you I am not so anal as to spend the time deriving a 6 digit
number for something that is obvious to the most casual reader
to be a small number.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 7:35 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > My mistake. It was -20°C on the ground and +18°C at 3000' agl.
> > A 38° difference. A difference in the "wrong" direction.
>
> So the pressure must have been much higher at 3000 feet, according to the
> reasoning given in your previous post.

You either do not understand or are unteachable. Perhaps this
is why you are limited to simming. I talked about inversions. I talked
about temperature and pressure for a *given* air mass. All you can do
is diss everything anyone says in a futile attempt to protect your
credibility.

Dan

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> You either do not understand or are unteachable. Perhaps this
> is why you are limited to simming. I talked about inversions. I talked
> about temperature and pressure for a *given* air mass. All you can do
> is diss everything anyone says in a futile attempt to protect your
> credibility.

> Dan

What credibility?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Twisting the words doesn't mean you are correct.
>
> Unlike you I am not so anal as to spend the time deriving a 6 digit
> number for something that is obvious to the most casual reader
> to be a small number.

You've already admitted that you don't know. No need to repeat it.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Twisting the words doesn't mean you are correct.
> >
> > Unlike you I am not so anal as to spend the time deriving a 6 digit
> > number for something that is obvious to the most casual reader
> > to be a small number.

> You've already admitted that you don't know. No need to repeat it.

I didn't "admit" anything and twisting the words doesn't mean you've
"won".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Not always. Not at all always.
>
> That's why I said "overall." It's a general rule, not an absolute rule.
>
>> "Always" just doesn't deal with reality. Works on a sim, I
>> suppose.
>
> Odd that you saw this word, but not the other one.
>
>> If you'd ever studied meteorology (Commercial Pilot
>> groundschool) you'd know that the temp falls with altitude until we
>> reach the tropopause. Then it starts rising until we reach the
>> stratopause, where it starts to fall again through the mesosphere, and
>> once we reach the thermosphere it rises again and keeps on rising,
>> though the density is so low that the actual heat content is minimal.
>
> Yes. I had previously alluded to this.
>
>> If pressure rises, so does temperature.
>
> Then why is the atmosphere hottest in areas of extremely low pressure?
>
>> The atmosphere is much more complex than you think.
>
> I didn't comment on its complexity.

Yes, you did.

Liar.

bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Benjamin Dover > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> WingFlaps writes:
>>>
>>>> So how do you explain the rather well known lapse rate?
>>>
>>> It depends on which lapse rate you have in mind.
>>>
>>
>> The one which states that as the temperature rises, the two molecules
>> in your head take a siesta.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> When did his intelligence double to two molecules?

Same way he reproduces. Mytosis.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> Now Mxs before you take off in your simulated Baron,
>> do you check the takeoff performance figures in the simulated flight
>> manual versus the lenght of runway at your simulated departure
>> airport?
>
> No. According to the POH (the sim version and the real version are
> the same), 4500 feet is enough for any situation, so as long as I have
> at least 4500 feet, I'm fine.

4500 feet of what, pixtels?
>
>> Do you know how to work out what your density altitude is?
>
> I have a calculator and an E6-B to work things out should that really
> become necessary.

What, in case you run out of tv screen?

>
>> Real pilots do this if there is any doubt they might
>> not have enough distance to clear the runway or any obstacles, and
>> since you are so obsessed with manufacturing pretended reality I am
>> sure you would want to be doing this also.
>
> I stay close enough to the center of the envelope that this is never a
> factor. It's a lot easier than pushing the envelope and having to do a
> truckload of calculations before every flight just to see if I can
> squeak by.

moron


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> come on live a little, push that envelope, you only live once.
>
> There are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.


Yeah, there are, in fact.



But you aren't a pilot and you will never be one


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Terry is another matter, but as for your analogy, you are incorrect.
>> There most certainly are old bold pilots.
>> The trick in flying isn't the avoidance of bold action, in fact the
>> reverse is true.
>> The trick is in knowing when to be bold and when not to be. Those who
>> know the difference are the ones who become "old, bold pilots".
>
> I didn't invent the saying.
>

And yet, without any experience whatsoeve, you repeat it.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 2:27 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > writes:
>
> >> Air molecules don't have altimeters to tell them the altitude.
>
> > Air molecules in a tank don't have rulers to tell them the dimensions
> > of the tank, either.
>
> Yes, they do.
>
> Bertie

No, they don't. They have dial calipers.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 12:05 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > WingFlaps writes:
>
> >> So how do you explain the rather well known lapse rate?
>
> > It depends on which lapse rate you have in mind.
>
> The one which states that as the temperature rises, the two molecules in
> your head take a siesta.
>
> Bertie

Those two molecules you so gaily mock, are the only things separating
the universe from an implosion of matter and anti-matter. (See
previous thread of Star Trek engine noises).

"Dogs and cats sleeping together. MASS HYSTERIA!"

Mxsmaniac is a 30-foot twinkie.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 10, 2:27 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > writes:
>>
>> >> Air molecules don't have altimeters to tell them the altitude.
>>
>> > Air molecules in a tank don't have rulers to tell them the
>> > dimensions of the tank, either.
>>
>> Yes, they do.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> No, they don't. They have dial calipers.


Micrometers?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 10, 12:05 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > WingFlaps writes:
>>
>> >> So how do you explain the rather well known lapse rate?
>>
>> > It depends on which lapse rate you have in mind.
>>
>> The one which states that as the temperature rises, the two molecules
>> in your head take a siesta.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Those two molecules you so gaily mock, are the only things separating
> the universe from an implosion of matter and anti-matter. (See
> previous thread of Star Trek engine noises).


You don't think that Anthony's are the two particles that theyy're going to
try to rip a hole in space/time with in that Larg Hadron Collider this
year?

>
> "Dogs and cats sleeping together. MASS HYSTERIA!"
>
> Mxsmaniac is a 30-foot twinkie.

I know this reference form somewhere, but can;'t place it. It could only be
KV2, though.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

terry > wrote in
:

> On Feb 12, 5:26*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> snip
>> I stay close enough to the center of the envelope that this is never
>> a fac
> tor.
>> It's a lot easier than pushing the envelope and having to do a
>> truckload o
> f
>> calculations before every flight just to see if I can squeak by.
>
> come on live a little, push that envelope, you only live once. dont
> die wondering
> Whats the worst thing that could happen?


He could live through it and come back here.


Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On Feb 14, 7:16 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 2:27 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
> >> :
>
> >> > writes:
>
> >> >> Air molecules don't have altimeters to tell them the altitude.
>
> >> > Air molecules in a tank don't have rulers to tell them the
> >> > dimensions of the tank, either.
>
> >> Yes, they do.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > No, they don't. They have dial calipers.
>
> Micrometers?
>
> Bertie

To six insignificant places. Engineering 101.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 14, 7:18 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 12:05 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
> >> :
>
> >> > WingFlaps writes:
>
> >> >> So how do you explain the rather well known lapse rate?
>
> >> > It depends on which lapse rate you have in mind.
>
> >> The one which states that as the temperature rises, the two molecules
> >> in your head take a siesta.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Those two molecules you so gaily mock, are the only things separating
> > the universe from an implosion of matter and anti-matter. (See
> > previous thread of Star Trek engine noises).
>
> You don't think that Anthony's are the two particles that theyy're going to
> try to rip a hole in space/time with in that Larg Hadron Collider this
> year?
>
>
>
> > "Dogs and cats sleeping together. MASS HYSTERIA!"
>
> > Mxsmaniac is a 30-foot twinkie.
>
> I know this reference form somewhere, but can;'t place it. It could only be
> KV2, though.
>
> Bertie

I think he's already got a ripped hole. Yeah, curious to see if the
universe turns inside out. There was a decent sci-fi novel based on
this experiment a few years ago but can't remember the name.

The quotes are from Ghostbusters. "She barks, she drools, she sleeps
above the covers....four FEET above the covers".

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 14, 7:18 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:5e3bd4e1-f197-4c0e-8bf3-

>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 10, 12:05 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > WingFlaps writes:
>>
>> >> >> So how do you explain the rather well known lapse rate?
>>
>> >> > It depends on which lapse rate you have in mind.
>>
>> >> The one which states that as the temperature rises, the two
>> >> molecules in your head take a siesta.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Those two molecules you so gaily mock, are the only things
>> > separating the universe from an implosion of matter and
>> > anti-matter. (See previous thread of Star Trek engine noises).
>>
>> You don't think that Anthony's are the two particles that theyy're
>> going to try to rip a hole in space/time with in that Larg Hadron
>> Collider this year?
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Dogs and cats sleeping together. MASS HYSTERIA!"
>>
>> > Mxsmaniac is a 30-foot twinkie.
>>
>> I know this reference form somewhere, but can;'t place it. It could
>> only be KV2, though.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I think he's already got a ripped hole. Yeah, curious to see if the
> universe turns inside out.


Or if people start arriving from the future.

There was a decent sci-fi novel based on
> this experiment a few years ago but can't remember the name.

Wel, there's been lots of similar sorts of things over the years, hasn't
there?


>
> The quotes are from Ghostbusters. "She barks, she drools, she sleeps
> above the covers....four FEET above the covers".


OK, got it now.