Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure"

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

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. . .

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!

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.

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.

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!

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

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...

"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.

"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