"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:34:01 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..

I had a six-footer from Edmund Scientific.

http://www.scientificsonline.com/pro...r-balloon.html

"Professional Weather Balloon, One 16 Foot Balloon, 100 Cubic Feet
(3072151) $79.95

Ok, but we were talking about tissue-paper hot-air balloons.

I have a funny story about those weather balloons, and my 8th-grade
buddy's hydrogen-generating apparatus, with zinc chips and some kind
of acid, but I'll spare you. g


Aww come on Ed...

--ya probably already told about it once, just that we've both done
forgotten.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:13:08 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:34:01 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

I had a six-footer from Edmund Scientific.

http://www.scientificsonline.com/pro...r-balloon.html

"Professional Weather Balloon, One 16 Foot Balloon, 100 Cubic Feet
(3072151) $79.95

Ok, but we were talking about tissue-paper hot-air balloons.

I have a funny story about those weather balloons, and my 8th-grade
buddy's hydrogen-generating apparatus, with zinc chips and some kind
of acid, but I'll spare you. g


Aww come on Ed...

--ya probably already told about it once, just that we've both done
forgotten.

I don't think so. Let me just cut to the end, where the newly laid
tile in my friend's basement turned into a puddle of silly putty...go
easy on the zinc, we learned. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:13:08 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:34:01 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
m...

I had a six-footer from Edmund Scientific.

http://www.scientificsonline.com/pro...r-balloon.html

"Professional Weather Balloon, One 16 Foot Balloon, 100 Cubic Feet
(3072151) $79.95

Ok, but we were talking about tissue-paper hot-air balloons.

I have a funny story about those weather balloons, and my 8th-grade
buddy's hydrogen-generating apparatus, with zinc chips and some kind
of acid, but I'll spare you. g


Aww come on Ed...

--ya probably already told about it once, just that we've both done
forgotten.

I don't think so. Let me just cut to the end, where the newly laid
tile in my friend's basement turned into a puddle of silly putty...go
easy on the zinc, we learned. g


I vaguely recall making rockets using zinc powder and sulphur as a
propellant, of mempry serves me, the usual exoected progagation rate was
something like 900 fps

Pretty sure it's no longer being recommended, good mix / packing job
basically becoming a pipe-bomb

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:56:41 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:13:08 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:34:01 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
om...

I had a six-footer from Edmund Scientific.

http://www.scientificsonline.com/pro...r-balloon.html

"Professional Weather Balloon, One 16 Foot Balloon, 100 Cubic Feet
(3072151) $79.95

Ok, but we were talking about tissue-paper hot-air balloons.

I have a funny story about those weather balloons, and my 8th-grade
buddy's hydrogen-generating apparatus, with zinc chips and some kind
of acid, but I'll spare you. g


Aww come on Ed...

--ya probably already told about it once, just that we've both done
forgotten.

I don't think so. Let me just cut to the end, where the newly laid
tile in my friend's basement turned into a puddle of silly putty...go
easy on the zinc, we learned. g


I vaguely recall making rockets using zinc powder and sulphur as a
propellant, of mempry serves me, the usual exoected progagation rate was
something like 900 fps

That was the formula promoted by Scientific American back in the '60s.
They had a chapter on amateur rocketry in _The Amateur Scientist_ and
I remember the formula. They said it was a lot safer than black
powder. I should hope so...


Pretty sure it's no longer being recommended, good mix / packing job
basically becoming a pipe-bomb

There's supposedly something a lot better.

The formula I was talking about was just pieces of zinc spatter in (I
think) hydrohloric acid. We got plenty of hydrogen -- and a
boiled-over beaker of acid. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Feb 26, 7:56*pm, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

...









On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:13:08 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:34:01 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
m...

I had a six-footer from Edmund Scientific.

http://www.scientificsonline.com/pro...r-balloon.html

* * *"Professional Weather Balloon, One 16 Foot Balloon, 100 Cubic Feet
(3072151) $79.95

Ok, but we were talking about tissue-paper hot-air balloons.

I have a funny story about those weather balloons, and my 8th-grade
buddy's hydrogen-generating apparatus, with zinc chips and some kind
of acid, but I'll spare you. g

Aww come on Ed...

--ya probably already told about it once, just that we've both done
forgotten.

I don't think so. Let me just cut to the end, where the newly laid
tile in my friend's basement turned into a puddle of silly putty...go
easy on the zinc, we learned. g

I vaguely recall making rockets using zinc powder and sulphur as a
propellant, of mempry serves me, the usual exoected progagation rate was
something like 900 fps

Pretty sure it's no longer being recommended, good mix / packing job
basically becoming a pipe-bomb

Never made my own. I used the Estes solid rockets. Half the time when
the parachute opened the rocket was carried so far I could never find
it.

"jon_banquer" wrote in message
...

Never made my own. I used the Estes solid rockets. Half the time when the
parachute opened the rocket was carried so far I could never find it

The estes still make for a fine bottle-rocket, scrape the clay
parachute-launch barrier loose to expose some actual fire to your
burst-charge, which can be contained in an end mill tube that's been
duct-taped to the top of the rocket tube.

A word of warning, you need a LONG stick and /or you need to attach weughts
to the bottom of the stick...the nozzle is the pivot point; if it is not
also the balance point ( a top-heavy rocket will overturn if you attempt to
balance the nozzle on your finger...if it does, then the trajectory is
basically random...the nozzle must ALWAYS stay pointed downwards if you want
to shoot for the moon instead of your neighbor's Cadillac.

And then there's the spent carcass...best to do over the ocean, IMO

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:57:08 -0600, "Snag" wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:27:41 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

I had a six-footer from Edmund Scientific. Was that it? Glue sticks
were easier. g

They had a catalog filled with cool ****

Pretty sure the printed version still is available, even...

http://www.scientificsonline.com/cat...ult/?q=balloon

Jeez, all those toys....

No hot-air tissue balloons like the ones they used to sell, though.
And the prices are pretty steep.

When I was a teen I made 'em out of those plastic bags the dry cleaners
send your suits home in ... but I always had a problem with getting enough
heat . I was using candles , and that just wasn't enough .

Sterno worked well enough.

As did the filling of the bag with the gas emitted from Draino and
Water with a bit of aluminum foil in the bottle. A fuze for a counter
weight always made a fun addition and far safer than a heat supply of
Sterno.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On 2/26/2013 9:57 PM, Snag wrote:

When I was a teen I made 'em out of those plastic bags the dry cleaners
send your suits home in ... but I always had a problem with getting enough
heat . I was using candles , and that just wasn't enough .


I wouldn't know, of course, but I understand the key is using birthday
candles. 12 of them. Hold the bottom of the bag open with crossed
drinking straws (you will need to jam one straw into another to make
them long enough), and carefully drip some wax onto the straws as candle
mounts. No one would want to try this, say, on a beach at night with an
offshore breeze, because a puff of breeze will fold over the top of the
bag and it will catch fire, plunging into the sea and endangering the
turtles. There is also the danger that the Asbury Park Press will report
that the UFO "glowed red and hummed".

Kevin Gallimore

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:12:07 -0800, Jeffrey Fowler
wrote:

On 2/26/2013 5:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:53:52 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:39:24 -0800, "anorton"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
So I was wondering, from a post here about a bone stock engine running
nitro methane instead of gasoline, how much extra horsepower could a
stock engine produce just by changing fuels from gas to nitro? I'm
thinking that the engine won't run very well. Now, I'm sure that if
the compression was changed, and the carb re-jetted, and the cam
changed, things might work better. But if all you do is change fuels I
think there won't be much of an increase. This is of course in
response to gunner's assertion that he was clocked going 264 mph on a
bone stock Ninja motorcycle burning nitro methane fuel. I don't think
the motorcycle could develop enough power to push itself and someone
sitting on it to over 200 mph no matter what kind of fuel it was
burning.
ERic

I think the issue with a motorcycle reaching those speeds is not so much
horsepower as stream lining. After all, if there was no resistance of any
kind, you could reach 264 mph with a 1 horsepower engine. The only
motorcycles that have reached speeds close to that I know about have had
fully enclosed shells. It was clear from Gunner's original description that
was not the case. I am not sure why there is so much debate about this.
Gunner is a text-book classic sociopath. He will say whatever he thinks he
can get away with to gain status among his percieved peers. When questioned,
he resorts to threats.
I know about the streamlining. That's why I was thinking about how
much HP it would take to actually push a sit on bike and rider at high
speed.
Eric

For a bicycle the force necessary to overcome "wind resistance"
requires 216,228,92 watts, or 289.96 H.P. at 264 MPH. This, of course,
does not include the losses due to internal friction in the engine,
rolling resistance of tires and so on, and is calculated solely on
cross sectional area, I'm sure.

You need to know something about the surface area.

It was taken from an article on "bicycle aerodynamics" and used a
"standard" area (whatever that was). The formula was apparently
tweaked by comparing it with actual torque and RPM figures taken from
the power meters that are now fitted to some bikes.
--
Cheers,

John B.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

http://www.scientificsonline.com/cat...ult/?q=balloon

Jeez, all those toys....

No hot-air tissue balloons like the ones they used to sell, though.
And the prices are pretty steep.
Ed Huntress

I made my paper balloons from instructions in a magazine that
described how to lay out the gore pattern for a sphere.

Polyethylene cleaners bags worked almost as well for minimal effort,
and didn't alarm the neighborhood with a bright flame when they
ignited. IIRC the ring was split bamboo and the cross wires were
strands of picture hanging wire. I hung them on a tall stake to
inflate them with a tiny campfire and then put alcohol-soaked cotton
balls in the aluminum foil cup for the flight.

The flame made the balloon glow like a Japanese paper lantern. This is
a good description:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/Cas...cle.asp?ID=427

That one wasn't mine. At that time I was pulling my pranks in college
a few towns away.
A hot-air balloon could lift a few cells from a disassembled 9V
battery and these light bulbs :
http://www.advantagehobby.com/137114/MDP391/?pcat=1316
or series-string (low voltage) Christmas flashers.

On Feb 26, 9:53*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:05:16 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Feb 26, 6:09*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

However, speed is an exponential-ratio thing, and the record set with
one of the recent models was 231 mph. If a bike will go 200 mph with
190 hp, it will take 298 hp to go 231, and 450 hp to go 265.

--
Ed Huntress

Can you explain the math?

No. I used a speed shop's calculator and I'm not telling. g

Oh, all right....The horsepower required to maintain a specific speed:

P = 1/2 * Cd * A * k * v^3

P = horsepower required for the velocity in question
Cd = coefficient of drag
A = frontal area
k = constant to account for the density of air (or you can use the
actual number - 1.2g/m^3, if you watch your units throughout)
v = velocity

In addition, you have to work in the rolling resistance. For a
motorcycle with high-speed, hard tires, you can ignore it for these
purposes. I'll give you a shortcut for the formula in a minute.

I'll give you the site of a calculator but first, note the v^3. That's
the key to the whole thing, which leads people to overestimate how
fast they can go on, say, a Kawasaki Ninja with two or three hundred
horsepower. g

Here's the calculator.

http://www.apexgarage.com/tech/horsepower_calc.shtml

Knowing that the unregulated speed of a Ninja is 200 mph and it
achieves that with 190 hp, you can plug in any trial numbers you want
to get everything to work (I used Cd = 0.5; A = 7; weight 500 lb.) As
long as the relationship of these numbers isn't ridiculous, all you
need to know is what trial numbers give you 200 mph with 190 hp. Then
use those same trial values and try changing the speed. That will give
you the horsepower.

I tested the online calculator by using a shortcut of the real formula
on my own pocket calculator:

Original speed cubed over original horsepower = final speed cubed over
"x", where "x" is horsepower required.

Actually, I tested it by using the variable for speed, and assumed 450
horsepower, to test the online calculator. It works either way.

By knowing the original speed and horsepower, you can do away with
drag coefficient, frontal area, and air density. It's the relationship
between power and speed that you need, plus the "cube" factor for
velocity. The shortcut, or the online calculator, will give that to
you.

Have fun.

--
Ed Huntress



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

Thanks.

Ah an online calculator.

I was wondering how you got the aerodynamic drag and the rolling
resistance . But a good on line calculator would take the rolling
resistance into account.

Dan

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:06:33 -0800, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"jon_banquer" wrote ...
Never made my own. I used the Estes solid rockets. Half the time when the
parachute opened the rocket was carried so far I could never find it

The estes still make for a fine bottle-rocket, scrape the clay
parachute-launch barrier loose to expose some actual fire to your
burst-charge, which can be contained in an end mill tube that's been
duct-taped to the top of the rocket tube.

A word of warning, you need a LONG stick and /or you need to attach weughts
to the bottom of the stick...the nozzle is the pivot point; if it is not
also the balance point ( a top-heavy rocket will overturn if you attempt to
balance the nozzle on your finger...if it does, then the trajectory is
basically random...the nozzle must ALWAYS stay pointed downwards if you want
to shoot for the moon instead of your neighbor's Cadillac.

Adding weights at the bottom is wrong way round -- the condition for
aerodynamically stable flight is center of gravity *above* the center
of pressure. Eg see following and some links from it.
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktstab.html

--
jiw

On Feb 27, 11:12*am, George Plimpton wrote:


These are hilarious. *It's *always* hilarious when people overstate
their IQ so egregiously. *IQ is distributed as the normal distribution,
with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. *An IQ of 145 would
be three standard deviations above the mean. *Approximately 99.7% of
values of a normally distributed measure lie within three standard
deviations of the mean, leaving 0.3% of values at the two extreme tails.
* If gummer claimed an IQ of "only" 145, in other words, he would be
claiming to have an IQ greater than that of about 99.85% of humanity.
But *no*! *gummer, *always* extravagant in his lying, has to add *more*
than another full standard deviation to his IQ. *If he had been just
slightly less extravagant and claimed an IQ of "only" 160, he would be
exactly four sigmas above the mean, which mean an IQ surpassing that of
99.9968% of humanity.

gummer isn't alone. *I regularly see people bragging about their own IQ,
or that of someone close to them whom they typically like, as being in
that range. *These people are simply bone-ignorant of statistics. *It's
not that any one person couldn't be that intelligent, but far too many
people casually claim such an astronomical IQ, and exactly like gummer,
*nothing* about them suggests that it might be true.


My experience is very different. I almost never see anyone bragging
about their
IQ. And I do know a few really bright people. Most of the really
bright people do their best to keep their IQ hidden.

It is pretty much like walking on water. You do not want people
knowing that you can , because the next thing you know they want you
to walk across the lake and get another six pack or two.


Dan

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:12:42 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 26, 9:53*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:05:16 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Feb 26, 6:09*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

However, speed is an exponential-ratio thing, and the record set with
one of the recent models was 231 mph. If a bike will go 200 mph with
190 hp, it will take 298 hp to go 231, and 450 hp to go 265.

--
Ed Huntress

Can you explain the math?

No. I used a speed shop's calculator and I'm not telling. g

Oh, all right....The horsepower required to maintain a specific speed:

P = 1/2 * Cd * A * k * v^3

P = horsepower required for the velocity in question
Cd = coefficient of drag
A = frontal area
k = constant to account for the density of air (or you can use the
actual number - 1.2g/m^3, if you watch your units throughout)
v = velocity

In addition, you have to work in the rolling resistance. For a
motorcycle with high-speed, hard tires, you can ignore it for these
purposes. I'll give you a shortcut for the formula in a minute.

I'll give you the site of a calculator but first, note the v^3. That's
the key to the whole thing, which leads people to overestimate how
fast they can go on, say, a Kawasaki Ninja with two or three hundred
horsepower. g

Here's the calculator.

http://www.apexgarage.com/tech/horsepower_calc.shtml

Knowing that the unregulated speed of a Ninja is 200 mph and it
achieves that with 190 hp, you can plug in any trial numbers you want
to get everything to work (I used Cd = 0.5; A = 7; weight 500 lb.) As
long as the relationship of these numbers isn't ridiculous, all you
need to know is what trial numbers give you 200 mph with 190 hp. Then
use those same trial values and try changing the speed. That will give
you the horsepower.

I tested the online calculator by using a shortcut of the real formula
on my own pocket calculator:

Original speed cubed over original horsepower = final speed cubed over
"x", where "x" is horsepower required.

Actually, I tested it by using the variable for speed, and assumed 450
horsepower, to test the online calculator. It works either way.

By knowing the original speed and horsepower, you can do away with
drag coefficient, frontal area, and air density. It's the relationship
between power and speed that you need, plus the "cube" factor for
velocity. The shortcut, or the online calculator, will give that to
you.

Have fun.

--
Ed Huntress



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

Thanks.

Ah an online calculator.

I was wondering how you got the aerodynamic drag and the rolling
resistance . But a good on line calculator would take the rolling
resistance into account.

Dan

I was lazy and looked for a calculator first. But I don't know the
source and so I didn't trust it.

The equation is something I had on hand. So, to check the online
calculator, I cancelled out the factors that would be the same at
different horsepower ratings and speeds on one particular bike (Cd, A,
k) and realized that the equation simplifies to something trivial, IF
you know both one particular speed and the horsepower required at that
speed.

Which happens rarely, but fortunately there is a lot of documentation
about it online because of the unusual agreement between Kawasaki and
the EU to speed-limit the bike to 300 km/hr. The magazines all wanted
to know what it will do without the governor, and there are several
road tests that came up with the 200 mph figure.

And that also happens to make sense in terms of the factors I
cancelled out. Those are pretty typical for a big bike with advanced
streamlining, like the Ninja.

Notice that the Honda that went 270+ did a bit better with less
horsepower (270 with 400 hp vs. 265 with 450), which also makes sense.
That Honda is engineered for one thing: setting a world record at
Bonneville. Its Cd probably is lower than that of any street bike.

Anyway, the online calculator checks out. Try varying the weight of
the bike a bit and see what the consequence is for different values of
rolling resistance (that's where the weight factor comes into play).
The speed varies very little, you'll notice. That also makes sense.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:09:07 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .

http://www.scientificsonline.com/cat...ult/?q=balloon

Jeez, all those toys....

No hot-air tissue balloons like the ones they used to sell, though.
And the prices are pretty steep.
Ed Huntress

I made my paper balloons from instructions in a magazine that
described how to lay out the gore pattern for a sphere.

Polyethylene cleaners bags worked almost as well for minimal effort,
and didn't alarm the neighborhood with a bright flame when they
ignited. IIRC the ring was split bamboo and the cross wires were
strands of picture hanging wire. I hung them on a tall stake to
inflate them with a tiny campfire and then put alcohol-soaked cotton
balls in the aluminum foil cup for the flight.

The flame made the balloon glow like a Japanese paper lantern. This is
a good description:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/Cas...cle.asp?ID=427

That one wasn't mine. At that time I was pulling my pranks in college
a few towns away.
A hot-air balloon could lift a few cells from a disassembled 9V
battery and these light bulbs :
http://www.advantagehobby.com/137114/MDP391/?pcat=1316
or series-string (low voltage) Christmas flashers.



This could be fun to build...add some lighting....

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


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On 2/26/2013 6:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:02:17 -0800, Tom Stanton
wrote:

On 2/26/2013 3:28 PM, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:52:10 -0800, wrote:

So I was wondering, from a post here about a bone stock engine running
nitro methane instead of gasoline, how much extra horsepower could a
stock engine produce just by changing fuels from gas to nitro? I'm
thinking that the engine won't run very well. Now, I'm sure that if
the compression was changed, and the carb re-jetted, and the cam
changed, things might work better. But if all you do is change fuels I
think there won't be much of an increase. This is of course in
response to gunner's assertion that he was clocked going 264 mph on a
bone stock Ninja motorcycle burning nitro methane fuel. I don't think
the motorcycle could develop enough power to push itself and someone
sitting on it to over 200 mph no matter what kind of fuel it was
burning.
ERic
Bone stock? Who the hell made that claim? It was a heavily modified
custom engine that may or may not been built by a guy who later busted
the land speed record on an improved verson. Might even have been the
same bike..shrug. Or not.
SNIP
Correction: Mark Weiber (AKA Gunner) said "stone custom engine" and I
read this as "stone stock engine" which I further morphed in my brain
as "bone stock engine". My mistake and I stand corrected. There is
still no ****ing way he rode any motorcycle as fast as 264 miles per
hour. Mark, how about you get the guy who's bike you supposedly rode
264 miles per hour to confirm you actually rode it that fast. Or that
you even got to sit on it while it was parked. I apologize for making
the mistake about what you said in the first place. But Mark, your
story was so fantastic that I guess I embellished it in my mind. Why
do you post stuff like this anyway? Nobody believes a word of it and
you must realize that. Why not just write a book about some kind of
superhero? Everybody will know it's a work of fiction and you can spin
all sorts of tales and maybe get paid for it instead of looking and
acting like a fool. Nobody takes the James Bond movies seriously but
they sure are fun to watch and make lots of money. Take advantage of
that. How can you expect folks to take you seriously when you talk
about stuff you do know about when you keep posting so much bull****
and presenting it as the truth?
Eric


--

================================================== ===================
SPAMMED INTO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS / COUNTRIES
================================================== ===================

"James Waldby" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:06:33 -0800, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"jon_banquer" wrote ...
Never made my own. I used the Estes solid rockets. Half the time when the
parachute opened the rocket was carried so far I could never find it

The estes still make for a fine bottle-rocket, scrape the clay
parachute-launch barrier loose to expose some actual fire to your
burst-charge, which can be contained in an end mill tube that's been
duct-taped to the top of the rocket tube.

A word of warning, you need a LONG stick and /or you need to attach weughts
to the bottom of the stick...the nozzle is the pivot point; if it is not
also the balance point ( a top-heavy rocket will overturn if you attempt to
balance the nozzle on your finger...if it does, then the trajectory is
basically random...the nozzle must ALWAYS stay pointed downwards if you want
to shoot for the moon instead of your neighbor's Cadillac.

Adding weights at the bottom is wrong way round -- the condition for
aerodynamically stable flight is center of gravity *above* the center
of pressure. Eg see following and some links from it.
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktstab.html


The goal here was to maintain a self-correcting, straight-up trajectory, not to hit a target located some distance away...

--with the proper amount of weight attached to the end of the stick, they would quickly arc in an upwards direction and assume a purely vertical climb even if launched horizontally.

On Feb 27, 3:13*pm, Gunner wrote:

VBG

23 Dollar pit? *Tell us!!



23 $ pit is a cave in North West Alabama that was found by Bill
Torode. Bill gave it that name because he lost $23 somewhere in the
cave on one of the first trips. It is called a pit because that is
what it is. It is a large sink hole maybe 150 feet across and an
eighty foot drop to the floor of the pit. So you start out repelling
down 80 feet, but then you move off to the right and go down another
20 foot drop using the same rope. And then you move off into the
cave.

As I remember the story , when Bill first found the pit , there was no
rope available. So no exploration was done. But of course they came
back another day with rope. And explored the cave. Well not all of
it. The upper section is not real large, but not too far from the
entrance was another pit, about 60 feet. And so that trip only
explored the upper level. But cavers are persistent. And they came
back on another trip with more rope. But not enough. As there was
yet another pit. This one about 160 feet. And so they had to come
back again. And I was in the group that finally got to the bottom of
the cave. We carried lots of rope and used most of it. We left early
to get to the cave and stayed late. As I remember we were in the cave
about 13 hours and repelled down over 400 feet. Actually repelling
down is easy. It is the climbing up that is hard. I was using
Asender knots and the rope at the 160 foot pit was a bit dirty with
clay . I got about 90 feet up and couldn't go any higher. I would
slide down about as fast as I could climb up. Bill tied his Jumars
to the bottom of the rope and I pulled them up and changed to the
Jumars. He let me use them on the remaining climbs. I am not sure if
it was because he thought I needed the assurance of using Jumars or
that he just wanted me to climb faster.

So I am one of the few, possibly only caver, that has done over 400
feet of vertical caving in Alabama without doing pit in Fern Cave.

Dan

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:54:47 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:13*pm, Gunner wrote:

VBG

23 Dollar pit? *Tell us!!



23 $ pit is a cave in North West Alabama that was found by Bill
Torode. Bill gave it that name because he lost $23 somewhere in the
cave on one of the first trips. It is called a pit because that is
what it is. It is a large sink hole maybe 150 feet across and an
eighty foot drop to the floor of the pit. So you start out repelling
down 80 feet, but then you move off to the right and go down another
20 foot drop using the same rope. And then you move off into the
cave.

As I remember the story , when Bill first found the pit , there was no
rope available. So no exploration was done. But of course they came
back another day with rope. And explored the cave. Well not all of
it. The upper section is not real large, but not too far from the
entrance was another pit, about 60 feet. And so that trip only
explored the upper level. But cavers are persistent. And they came
back on another trip with more rope. But not enough. As there was
yet another pit. This one about 160 feet. And so they had to come
back again. And I was in the group that finally got to the bottom of
the cave. We carried lots of rope and used most of it. We left early
to get to the cave and stayed late. As I remember we were in the cave
about 13 hours and repelled down over 400 feet. Actually repelling
down is easy. It is the climbing up that is hard. I was using
Asender knots and the rope at the 160 foot pit was a bit dirty with
clay . I got about 90 feet up and couldn't go any higher. I would
slide down about as fast as I could climb up. Bill tied his Jumars
to the bottom of the rope and I pulled them up and changed to the
Jumars. He let me use them on the remaining climbs. I am not sure if
it was because he thought I needed the assurance of using Jumars or
that he just wanted me to climb faster.

So I am one of the few, possibly only caver, that has done over 400
feet of vertical caving in Alabama without doing pit in Fern Cave.

Dan


Cool!!

Is there a known bottom to the beasty?


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Feb 27, 10:35*pm, Gunner wrote:

Cool!!

Is there a known bottom to the beasty?



Yes. We got to the bottom and mapped all the passages.

Now it up to the readers to figure out how much of the story is true
and what parts are false. I will wait for the results before posting
about " Dan's Crawl Cave ". This time there is only Bill and Dan
involved.


Dan

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:54:23 -0700, Mike Colangelo
wrote:

On 2/26/2013 6:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:02:17 -0800, Tom Stanton
wrote:

On 2/26/2013 3:28 PM, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:52:10 -0800, wrote:

So I was wondering, from a post here about a bone stock engine running
nitro methane instead of gasoline, how much extra horsepower could a
stock engine produce just by changing fuels from gas to nitro? I'm
thinking that the engine won't run very well. Now, I'm sure that if
the compression was changed, and the carb re-jetted, and the cam
changed, things might work better. But if all you do is change fuels I
think there won't be much of an increase. This is of course in
response to gunner's assertion that he was clocked going 264 mph on a
bone stock Ninja motorcycle burning nitro methane fuel. I don't think
the motorcycle could develop enough power to push itself and someone
sitting on it to over 200 mph no matter what kind of fuel it was
burning.
ERic

Bone stock? Who the hell made that claim? It was a heavily modified
custom engine that may or may not been built by a guy who later busted
the land speed record on an improved verson. Might even have been the
same bike..shrug. Or not.

SNIP
Correction: Mark Weiber (AKA Gunner) said "stone custom engine" and I
read this as "stone stock engine" which I further morphed in my brain
as "bone stock engine". My mistake and I stand corrected. There is
still no ****ing way he rode any motorcycle as fast as 264 miles per
hour. Mark, how about you get the guy who's bike you supposedly rode
264 miles per hour to confirm you actually rode it that fast. Or that
you even got to sit on it while it was parked. I apologize for making
the mistake about what you said in the first place. But Mark, your
story was so fantastic that I guess I embellished it in my mind. Why
do you post stuff like this anyway? Nobody believes a word of it and
you must realize that. Why not just write a book about some kind of
superhero? Everybody will know it's a work of fiction and you can spin
all sorts of tales and maybe get paid for it instead of looking and
acting like a fool. Nobody takes the James Bond movies seriously but
they sure are fun to watch and make lots of money. Take advantage of
that. How can you expect folks to take you seriously when you talk
about stuff you do know about when you keep posting so much bull****
and presenting it as the truth?
Eric

Very good points.
Without rejetting the "stock" engine won't run at all on
nitromethane