Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DuncanDoenitz

Pages: < Back  1 ... 9 10 [11]
201
Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station
« on: May 16, 2020, 06:25:14 PM »
I think somerled may be correct.  Its a plane.  Its been travelling at over 7 km per second since 1998.  Need to get me some of that fuel. 

Or a balloon.  A really aerodynamic, pointy, balloon. 

202
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: May 15, 2020, 07:06:07 PM »
"I" am doing engineering on jet engines in the real world and they don't need that level of accuracy, a claim made by you which is incorrect.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the building of modern jet engines requires less accurate measurements than what they were doing in the 1800's? I find a claim like that rather hard to believe and was unable to find any evidence to support or refute it online.


You won't find it on-line because its Commercial-in-Confidence Maintenance data from the manufacturer. 

But why would you think that all technical progress depends purely on the ability to measure increasingly long decimal fractions?  Since its the example you raised, do you know how the gap between turbine rotor blade tips and the enclosing stator is generally measured in service?  Laser? Photon particle accelerator? 

No.  We normally use feeler gauges, like Henry Ford used to set up the spark plugs on his Model T.  Do you know how we ensure that the flying control range of movement is correct on a business aircraft?  We use a protractor.  Or a ruler. 

You really need to consider whether the level of precision you're claiming, in any field of technology (in the real world) is going to be robust enough to survive erosion, temperature change, contamination, and simply surviving transit from where its made to where its employed. 

I don't doubt that there are some engineering technologies that are designed, manufactured and maintained to higher tolerances, but don't quote turbine engine blades as an example when you clearly have no knowledge of the subject or data sources yourself.  Perhaps you could provide an example, with sources, from your own field of technical expertise, not just something you read on the internet. 

203
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: May 14, 2020, 06:21:02 PM »
Your're missing the point IAMCPC.  "WE" have the ability to split the atom and do brain surgery, but "I" do not,  and it doesn't matter, because "I" don't need to spit atoms or operate on brains. 

Similarly, I agree that "WE" can measure a zillionth of an inch, but "I" can't, and it doesn't matter, because "I" am doing engineering on jet engines in the real world and they don't need that level of accuracy, a claim made by you which is incorrect.   

204
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: May 14, 2020, 08:04:35 AM »
Quote from IAMCPC on 13 May 2020:

"Second off small distances do matter.
There is an entire branch of science called metrology dedicated to precise measurements measuring to the milliong/billionth of an inch actually is important and matters from things like nano technology, computer processors, or the precision engineering needed in a modern jet engine where, if one blade is long by .00000005 CM and another blade is short by .00000005 CM the entire engine would either not function or function much less efficiently". 

I don't know how to make a computer chip, but I am a Licensed Jet Engine Engineer.  In engine maintenance I've got no way of measuring a turbine blade to 5/millionth of a millimeter and, you know what, it doesn't matter.  The engine is going to work, and to an acceptable level of efficiency. If someone made a blade to that level of accuracy, it would be a few molecules smaller by the time he'd cleaned it and put it in a shipping package.  I'm looking for around 0.02mm (0.002cm). You're talking out of your jetpipe. 

On a similar note, I've got an apple in a fruit-bowl; one apple.  I add a second apple.  How many apples in the bowl?  Well, while I was picking the second apple, bacteria started reacting on the first apple and decay set in so, I've probably got 1.9999999995 apples. 

See my point?  Math is math.  Reality is reality.

205
Pete,

From the FES Wiki "The Ice Wall"

"Along the edge of our local area exists a massive 150 foot Ice Wall. The 150 foot Ice Wall is on the coast of Antarctica. The Ice Wall is a massive wall of ice that surrounds Antarctica".

But you wrote that the Ice Wall IS Antarctica. 

So is the Ice Wall the edge of Antarctica, or does the whole of Antarctica comprise the wall?  Do you see my point?  I'm trying to establish if you accept that many people have (and continue to) travel and explore the continent of Antarctica by air, ground motor-vehicle, dog-sled, etc (for professional and recreational reasons) and have permanent bases there. 

206
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: May 07, 2020, 02:55:20 PM »
BR, ICare, JSS, AllAround and friends; my brain is starting to hurt. 


207
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: May 07, 2020, 11:35:04 AM »
Totallackey today at 10.38 AM;

"Now, knowing that gas released to the confines of a vacuum does 0 work, ...."


Lackey Mate, for once you've hit the nail on the head.  The whole point of Joule's experiment is that it was in a CONFINED vacuum, ie a closed system.  The gas accelerates into the vacuum chamber and then decellerates by an equal and opposite value, resulting in no overall change of energy or velocity.  In the limitless vacuum of space the rocket exhaust is released into an UNCONFINED space so does not subsequently come to rest.  It just keeps on going. 

You can't just keep repeating the soundbite "gas released into a vacuum does no work".  Its just a catchphrase. 

Garlic bread! 

Here's Johny! 

Nice to see you! 


Unless you understand the science and the context, its meaningless. 




208
Sorry, I don't want to muddle up the facts (again) and mislead anyone, so from the Wiki;

"The Earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back. This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica. Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond".

So the Ice Wall is the edge of Antarctica? Or not?  And few have lived to tell the tale? 

And no-one has any idea about Question #24, even though its "a topic of great interest"? 

209
Yo Pete, genuine apologies if I've appeared to show disrespect to you or Tom; that was not my intention.  I thought I had caught the essence of FE's concept of Antarctica/Ice-Wall/South Pole, but obviously not. 

However, I suggest that you're now diverting the topic (again) onto diplomacy and the semantics of debating per se, rather than provide an answer question #24 of Matt's original post.   

Man of straw indeed. 

210
For an intelligent, educated man, some might regard Tom’s answer to #24 (beyond the Ice Wall) as either disingenuous or evasive.  The well publicized multi-national permanent research stations (if they exist, of course) could be part of a global conspiracy, but just a little research reveals that literally dozens of expeditions have explored Antarctica; some alone, some funded by governments, some funded privately.  Some have been televised, some resulted in books, and some are the subject of Guinness World Records.  Tom could refer to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions   
for a list. 
Some examples:

Roald Amundsen, explorer.  1911, Privately funded.  Tom doesn’t seem to know that Amundsen claimed to have been there. 

Capt Robert F Scott, Royal Naval officer and explorer.  1912, funded by the Royal Navy, Royal Society and the Royal Geographical Society. 

Michael Palin, actor, writer and Dead-Parrot Sketch demi-god.  1991, funded by the BBC, Prominent Television and Passepartout Productions.  Unlike Tom, you could read his book; Pole to Pole, 1992, BBC Books. Unlike Tom, you could also watch his TV series of the same name. 

David Attenborough, naturalist, broadcaster and National Treasure.  1993, with support from the National Geographic Society.  Quote:  “I am at the very centre of the great white continent, Antarctica. The South Pole is about half a mile away. For a thousand miles in all directions, there is nothing but ice. And, in the whole of this continent, which is about one-and-a-half times the size of the United States and larger than Europe, there is a year-round population of no more than 800 people. This is the loneliest and coldest place on Earth, the place that is most hostile to life. And yet, in one or two places, it is astonishingly rich”.   Unlike Tom, you could watch his TV series “Life in the Freezer”. 

The stock answer from FE, of course, is that it’s an uninhabitable wilderness behind an unassailable ice-wall (think Game of Thrones) guarded by an Illuminati-sponsored security force, and no-one has seen it. 

In the circumstances Matt, “unknown” is as good as you’ll get. 

211
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: April 24, 2020, 08:43:00 PM »
Lackey, JP Joule would be turning in his grave at how some people are misinterpreting his work and claiming his support for their own theories. 

I think everyone is happy with his "free-expansion into a vacuum" experiment.  In the demonstration normally presented, the gas is released from its containment on the left, along the x-axis, into the evacuated containment on the right, such that it then occupies both parts of the vessel.  The gas comes to rest.  The vessel is insulated.  The internal mass and energy and heat remain unchanged during the process.  No work.

Lets consider the first individual molecule of gas to make that journey.  When the gas is released, that molecule is accelerated through the aperture into vacuum.  It has velocity.  That velocity is the result of the pressure of all its fellow molecules pushing against it.  It is an action to the right, and at some point will produce a reaction to the left. 

The next molecule does the same thing; same action, same reaction.  But now there are 2 molecules in the right hand containment, and they ADDITIONALLY repel each other, so also accelerating along the y- and z-axes.  They are expanding freely in a vacuum.  But they still have their initial velocity to the right on the x-axis. 

Pretty soon, roughly half of the remaining molecules will join their colleagues on the journey.  The acceleration of each along the x-axis will be infinitesimally less than the first, because the right-hand containment is beginning to pressurise.  Each will accelerate to the right on the x-axis, an action, creating the need for a reaction.  They will also expand freely along the y- and z-axes.  But you have to remember that whatever acceleration they receive through free-expansion is ADDITIONAL to the velocity they had to the right initially. 

Meanwhile, our first molecule has hit the right-hand wall af the containment, and comes to rest.  By reducing its velocity to zero, it has accelerated to the LEFT on the x-axis.  This is an action to the left, and will produce a reaction to the right.  But just a minute, we left an action/reaction pair hanging a few paragraphs back, which is convenient because when we dial that in, then the algebraic equation for all the force applied to Molecule #1 is zero.  It started at rest and finished at rest.  No action.  No reaction.  No work.  Thank you JPJ. 

Now lets transfer the left-hand containment to the infinite majesty of space.  When released, our molecules accelerate to the right, an action.  Yes, the gas disperses freely in 3 dimensions into the vacuum but the individual molecules retain their velocity along the x-axis.  Although the gas is very, very, very dispersed, it hasn't ceased to exist, the molecules still have mass and velocity.  They got that velocity by being accelerated out of the containment; an action to the right, producing a reaction of the containment to the left.  And because they don't hit the wall of a right hand containment, so there is no second action/reaction pair, they keep going.  For ever. 

As does the containment, to the left.  For ever. 

Work done. 

212
OK Pete, "pay attention to the fact that a PhD is a research qualification, not a level of education". 

I see.  So is Batchelor of "I Was Taught This", better or worse than Doctor of "I Researched This Myself from Source Material". 

Hmm. 

213
If the Bi-polar Model is Tom's preference (Post 30 March) we might finally be getting somewhere in developing common ground between the FE/RE Camps.  I know the FE's have some difficulties agreeing a definitive version, but lets consider the most commonly seen proposal (centered roughly on Africa);

1.  It shows continents in a relationship which many RE'ers would recognise. 
2.  It includes an Antarctic continent.  We know that exists because, as well as government agencies, Michael Palin has been there (Pole to Pole, Palin, BBC Books, 1992).  And no-one is going to accuse one-half-of-the-Dead-Parrot-Sketch of being a government patsy.  And yes, there was midnight sun, it was December. 
3.  It includes, by definition, a South Pole. 

An anomaly with the Bi-Polar where we struggle to bring the Roundies on-board is the relationship between the extreme East and West sides of the map.  The Eastern Pacific is shown at the extreme left (West) and the Western Pacific vice versa.  This is highlights a number of issues;

4.   Pacific Ocean currents, helpfully illustrated by Tom in a Post later the same day (on a Mercator Projection?).  Tom's illustration of the contra-rotating Northern and Southern Pacific currents/drifts seems incompatible with the bi-polar model. 
5.   Trans-Pacific travel.    A trans-pacific flight from Chile to Australia, for instance, would not seem feasible.  QED; see the recent Flat Earth Theory Topic "Are plane tickets real?".  Please read that thread before disputing it. 

What might be accepted by both camps:  Print a Bi-Polar map on an A3-sized sheet of thin latex.  Now s-t-r-e-t-c-h this around a basketball so that the left and right sides of the map meet on the "dark-side" of the Earth, sorry, basketball. 

Voila! 

214
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: March 21, 2020, 10:51:54 PM »
Also LATAM (Chilean State Airline) fly Santiago-Melbourne (7000 miles on a RE model) 3 times per week, Flight Numbers LA804/LA805.  Its not difficult to find.  Flight times Chile-bound last week were 12 hrs 7 min, 11 hrs 53 min and 12 hrs 10 min (FlightRadar24).  That gives airspeeds of around 580 mph, reasonable for a Boeing 787. 

No stops in LA, no stops at Area 51, just Santiago to Melbourne across the Arctic Circle.  Flight times Australia-bound around 520 mph (due to prevailing winds. 

And ETOPS aircraft have to remain 50 miles from land? Seriously?  Ask the population of Iceland.  The regulation is currently 4-hrs flying time at single engine cruise speed, which is madness from a safety point of view, but gives almost no restriction to routing.   


215
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 19, 2020, 07:54:14 PM »
Duncan the Know-Nothing time-served Licensed Aircraft Engineer again;

Are we considering the vacuum as a static state?  Because it may not be. 

With the rocket engine at rest in space then the combustion chamber, nozzle and environment are at zero pressure, and no gas is present; no flow, no thrust.  Once the motor fires, fuel and oxidiser combine in the combustion chamber and a chemical reaction converts them to (mainly) carbon dioxide and water.  As the chemical reaction is exothermic, this material is at high pressure and temperature in the form of a gas.  The gas attempts to equalise with environmental pressure (zero) by escaping through the nozzle.  Because the nozzle is a choke it restricts the flow. 

You understand a choke?  You inflate your car tyres from a compressed air cylinder.  Your tyre pressure is 2 bar, the cylinder air is 10 bar.  You pull the lever and does the tyre jump to 10? Does the compressor plummet to 2?  No, air flows across the choke (the tyre valve) creating a pressure drop and accelerating (hear the hiss?).  As more gas enters the tyre its pressure slowly rises.  As air is lost from the cylinder its pressure slowly falls.  At no point are the pressure in the cylinder and tyre equal, and the pressure in the tyre-valve is somewhere beteen 10 and 2. 

Our rocket exhaust gas similarly experiences a pressure drop and accelerates as it exits the nozzle; If the pressure in the chamber is x, nozzle presure is y and the environmental pressure is zero, then x>y>zero.  The nozzle pressure is greater than zero.  It is not a vacuum.   As the exhaust gas accelerates in one direction, blah blah, you and Newton know the rest of the story, and on we go to Destination Moon. 

If the exothermic reaction produced its gas in a free vacuum it would dissipate freely in all directions = no work. 

And once its LEFT our nozzle it does just that, but we don't care, because it did its work already in the nozzle. 


216
Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 17, 2020, 11:21:58 PM »
Excuse me, I'm not a rocket engineer, so I'm not qualified to comment. 

I am, however, a Licensed Aircraft Engineer, in the categories of Turbine and Piston engine aeroplanes. 

Pure jets, turboprops, turbofans and reciprocating engines all convert the chemical energy of a fuel into heat to (either directly or indirectly) accelerate a mass of gas (air, or a mixture of air and combustion products) along a vector; normally rearwards.  This is an action. 

Newton's RE-action (not "pushing against the atmosphere") accelerates the engine along a vector opposite to the original action.  I know this because its my job.  Its how we engineers get you to Ibeza.  Or to Antarctica, if it existed.   "Doo doo doo doo" (Outer Limits music). 

217
Thanks Inquisitive; I agree with your corrections regarding terminology, and I didn't know that about the OS Maps Apps. 

Although my argument for the existence of GPS (or GNSS) might seem logical, I confess to still being on the fence.  Of course, if its NOT satellite based, the only people who would be in on the secret would be all ships captains, all airline pilots, all marine/aviation electronic engineers, all employees of GNSS equipment manufacturers, and all national so-called space program organisations (of all geo-political persuasions). 

And why do they always install an aircraft's GNSS antenna on the top of the fuselage? 

218
My first Post! Excuse me butting in;

I think 2 things have been overlooked here by both sides of the argument. 
 
1.  Consider the first word of the term "Commercially Available": it means you have to pay for it. 
2.  What is a GPS device. 

Looking at item 1, if I can use the analogy of old-school navigation using a paper map, then the first thing you obviously need is a map.  This means that someone has to survey the terrain and its features to an acceptable degree of precision for its intended purpose.  This might be by surveyors on the ground, aerial survey, or a mixture of both.  They then have to transfer this data onto its graphic format and organise its distribution to users.  They aren't going to give this hard-earned information away; they SELL it to the consumer.  For the sake of argument, lets call the map a database.  The second thing you need is to know where you currently are on the terrain/map.  Generally, this is a given, because we all know, depending on the journey we're making, "I'm at home", "I'm in Glasgow", or "I'm at Gatwick Airport".  Thirdly, we need a sense of direction; this might be as complex as a compass and Inertial Navigation, radio beacons, sail west at 10 knots for 6 hours, or just "walk to the church and turn left on the High Street".  Whatever, we need positional information about where we are and its relationship with where we want to be. 

Looking at Item 2; what is a GPS device?  Its got 2 parts, the first part is a receiver.  It doesn't transmit anything.  I gets free-to-receive signals from Global Positioning System satellites and by analysing differentials in the signals it determines where it is on a vast featureless ball.  This is its positional information.  It does this to a high degree of accuracy, but it has no idea that it is in Wigan.  That's where the second part comes in.  Remember our database?  We need to COMMERCIALLY buy, or rent, a database.  A true GPS device includes a software database which you paid for when you bought the GPS from Halfords or PC World or had it included in the car you bought from Honda, or the plane you bought from Cessna.  You either paid for it once at the shop, or you subscribe to an update service, but its stored in the GPS device.  Depending on need, you bought/subscribed one with your country's maps, continental maps, roads, seaways or whatever.  A SMARTPHONE is NOT a GPS device.  It EMULATES a GPS device by incorporating a GPS receiver, which (remember) does not transmit.  The PHONE transmits to a terrestrial phone-mast using your cellphone-data allowance, the network verifies your entitlement because of your (commercial) monthly data package, and sends you a map of where you currently are, from a terrestrial phone-mast.  Your phone does not carry around a database of the world, but they will RENT it to you as you need it.  If you drive into the middle of the ocean, or the desert, or probably a Welsh valley you will continue to receive a GPS signal but you will lose your phone signal, you will lose your rented maps, you will lose your emulated-GPS.  The phone's space-based GPS receiver is still working, but it no longer has a terrestrially-provided map to relate to. 


Pages: < Back  1 ... 9 10 [11]