On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 12:37:58 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .

...
It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.
...
Ed Huntress

I kept Chinese takeout cold in my refrigerator overnight with solar
power.

Where are all the reporters?

-jsw

Does it fly? g

--
Ed Huntress

"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message
...
On 7/6/2015 7:43 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
... The skipper of an ocean racer
needed rear view mirrors in case he was being overtaken by a faster
US
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

That would be a great video: a long helicopter shot of this sleek
racer slicing through the water; zoom in on the racer to see its
on-the-edge trim, its heel, and the spray coming over as it sizzles
along; the essence of speed. From on-board the racer pan over to
the discernible shape of an approaching aircraft carrier. Stay on
the carrier as it nears the racer, growing larger and larger until
it fills the frame, dwarfing the racer as it passes. Then back to
the chopper for the opening view, but with the carrier pulling away
and the racer looking puny. I love it.

Bob

IIRC the racer couldn't go as fast as the carrier in heavy seas
because he would become airborne off wave crests.

A carrier's theoretical hull speed is somewhat over 40 knots.
1.34 * SQRT(1000) = 42.37

-jsw

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 12:37:58 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..

...
It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop
and
flying at night -- on solar power.

That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some
people's
minds when solar power is discussed.
...
Ed Huntress

I kept Chinese takeout cold in my refrigerator overnight with solar
power.

Where are all the reporters?

-jsw

Does it fly? g

--
Ed Huntress

It did have wings.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Does it fly? g
--
Ed Huntress

As a kid I discovered that I could make a very light poly film
parachute fly on a humid sunny day. I cut them from dry cleaners' bags
and ballasted them with a tiny twig, just barely enough weight to keep
them open. The shroud knot tucks pulled the flat canopy sheet into a
mushroom shape. They rose slowly on thermals and glistened like
polished metal from the sun and cloud reflections as they drifted out
of sight over the distant treetops.

This was in Exeter, NH in the 1950's, upwind from Betty and Barney
Hill's house.

I had nothing to do with the 1965 incident in Kensington. At that time
I was launching my UFO balloons in Durham.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exeter_incident

On 07/06/2015 8:24 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
... As for the advertising industry,
its main priority is selling its clients' products. ...

I'd say it's _main_ priority, like any other business is continuing to
sell _its_ own product. That it helps to do that to succeed in the
other objective is a bonus.

--

On 07/06/2015 12:16 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 12:37:58 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

....
I kept Chinese takeout cold in my refrigerator overnight with solar
power.

Where are all the reporters?

-jsw

Does it fly?g

--
Ed Huntress

It did have wings.

Most flies do..

--

"dpb" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/2015 12:16 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 12:37:58 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

...
I kept Chinese takeout cold in my refrigerator overnight with
solar
power.

Where are all the reporters?

-jsw

Does it fly?g

--
Ed Huntress

It did have wings.

Most flies do..


These were teriyaki wings.

"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:mnef03$841
:

They rose slowly on thermals and glistened like
polished metal from the sun and cloud reflections as they drifted out
of sight over the distant treetops.


Did the same in 1958, Jim! It was chancy, whether or not you could find
a thermal, but in Florida, they're common, especially if you knew what to
look for in the trees nearby. So I had about a 3-4% success rate.

It got better when I started launching them wrapped up from a huge
slingshot! G

L

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:36:48 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

On 7/6/2015 7:43 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
... The skipper of an ocean racer
needed rear view mirrors in case he was being overtaken by a faster US
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

That would be a great video: a long helicopter shot of this sleek racer
slicing through the water; zoom in on the racer to see its on-the-edge
trim, its heel, and the spray coming over as it sizzles along; the
essence of speed. From on-board the racer pan over to the discernible
shape of an approaching aircraft carrier. Stay on the carrier as it
nears the racer, growing larger and larger until it fills the frame,
dwarfing the racer as it passes. Then back to the chopper for the
opening view, but with the carrier pulling away and the racer looking
puny. I love it.

Bob


That..would be way cool!!
^ 5!!!!

Gunner

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 9:43:50 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:




But... at least from all I can find, the Solar Impulse is very much a
powered glider. Powered with an electric motor(s) true but as an
airplane not a really new thing. It is made of new materials and self
charges but what else? The Rutan Voyager flew around the world in 1986
without stopping or refueling and was airborne for 216+ hours and flew
26,366 statue miles.

While it certainly is a feat it isn't anything really new or
innovative in aeronautics.

By the way, the record for a model airplane - with no power - seems to
be 36h 3mn 19s :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

I forget most of the detail , but another feat was a model airplane that flew across the Atlantic using GPS for guidance. But it was a powered airplane.

Did a google search and found this.

http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/U...rossing_2.html

But that was not the model airplane I was thinking of.

Dan

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 4.170...
"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in
news:mnef03$841
:

They rose slowly on thermals and glistened like
polished metal from the sun and cloud reflections as they drifted
out
of sight over the distant treetops.


Did the same in 1958, Jim! It was chancy, whether or not you could
find
a thermal, but in Florida, they're common, especially if you knew
what to
look for in the trees nearby. So I had about a 3-4% success rate.

It got better when I started launching them wrapped up from a huge
slingshot! G

L

I used the round cans that Scotch tape came in for the catapulted
parachutes, with the opening delay set by how I wound the shrouds
around the can, but the thermal chutes were too light to open by
themselves. I dragged them open and then flipped the mass of air they
contained upwards to get them started.

The thermals aren's so strong in NH, our thunderstorms can't compare
to Florida's. They are driven by the lower adiabatic lapse rate of
saturated vs drier air, ie wet air becomes more buoyant the higher it
rises because it doesn't cool as fast as the dry air around it. Thus
we have thermal updrafts and thunderstorms.

-jsw

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:36:48 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

On 7/6/2015 7:43 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
... The skipper of an ocean racer
needed rear view mirrors in case he was being overtaken by a
faster US
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

That would be a great video: a long helicopter shot of this sleek
racer
slicing through the water; zoom in on the racer to see its
on-the-edge
trim, its heel, and the spray coming over as it sizzles along; the
essence of speed. From on-board the racer pan over to the
discernible
shape of an approaching aircraft carrier. Stay on the carrier as it
nears the racer, growing larger and larger until it fills the frame,
dwarfing the racer as it passes. Then back to the chopper for the
opening view, but with the carrier pulling away and the racer
looking
puny. I love it.

Bob


That..would be way cool!!
^ 5!!!!

Gunner

Supposedly Donald Campbell almost gave up chasing records when after
nearly killing himself to briefly reach 440 MPH he was flying home and
calmly enjoying a steak when the captain announced their speed as 550
MPH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Campbell

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 12:37:22 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

...
It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.
...
Ed Huntress

I kept Chinese takeout cold in my refrigerator overnight with solar
power.

Where are all the reporters?

Well, to be frank Jim, The New York Times (Dec 29, 1988) mentioned something about an "Iron Triangle" being a function of "Congress, special interest groups and the news media -- an interesting example of Orwellian newspeak".

Now who knows? If you aren't a part of either of those three, then I guess you can't always expect the media to just show up all willy-nilly.

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:50:24 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:43:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:58:12 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:56:38 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:47:30 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 07:07:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 11:01:04 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:15ifpa9f3nn0gdc35at3t7an528d6sbe7i@4ax .com...
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 07:28:17 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:
...
This is the sort of accomplishment that has real significance:
http://airminded.org/2009/10/23/the-great-air-race/

In what sense?

"Could any more striking contrast be imagined than the weariness and
exhaustion of Scott and Black and the pleasant excitement of
Parmentier's passengers, who flew in the world's most notable race
as
tourists?"

First place went to a custom British racer, second to a standard US
airliner which stopped for passengers. The DC-2 was an early version
of the classic DC-3, the 247D its similar Boeing competitor. The
British winner was made of wood.


--
Ed Huntress

Are you really unable to see the significance of an American
commercial airliner nearly beating a purpose-built British racing
plane?

Not since the dementia hit him several years ago, no.

So what was the significance, Larry? Another American commercial
airliner, the Lockheed Electra, set an around-the-world speed record,
and numerous other records, and was a contemporary of the Douglas
planes. Why are they not more significant?

Oh, you don't know? Neither does anyone else. All of this
"significance" crap is a question of what you think is most important.

You're just blowing smoke again.

Actually the DC-2 won the race (on handicap :-) but was about 20 hours
slower than the outright winner, the Dehaviland DH-88 for the entire
trip which would seem to prove that the DC-2 was the more reliable
plane as the DH had a cruising speed of 220 MPH while the DC-2 was
probably about 160 MPH.

The DC-2 was an understressed, reliable step in the development of
commercial airliners. There's a great story I enjoyed reading about
one some years ago, which flew through an icestorm in the Midwest,
contnued flying and landed safely with heavily iced wings. The pilot
said a DC-3 never would have stayed aloft under those conditions.

When I was going to school in Miami there was a D-2 in one of the
hangers. There were people working on it and eventually it left.
Someone said that it had been taken to S. America to fly there.

In Vietnam I worked on DC-3's that were as old as I was :-)

There were many pivotal developments in aircraft, about any one of
which we could debate their "significance." Amidst the engineering, I
think we lose sight, however, of accomplishments that reflect a new
awareness on the part of the general public. A race winner may catch
attention for a moment. But an accomplishment like
continent-to-continent nonstop transatlantic flight (as opposed to,
say, island-to-island g) provoked a new awareness. Breaking the
sound "barrier" provoked a new awareness. Flying a manned aircraft on
solar power, across much of the Pacific in one hop, provokes a new
awareness.

But... at least from all I can find, the Solar Impulse is very much a
powered glider. Powered with an electric motor(s) true but as an
airplane not a really new thing. It is made of new materials and self
charges but what else?

It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

But so what? Is it really important that something is powered with
electricity flew? Good Lord, electric powered model airplanes have
been flying for some time now. It is not new!

Some time ago some blokes flew a human powered airplane across the
English Channel and everyone clapped their hands and shouted, but so
far I haven't seen that technology used commercially.

After all Solar power has been used by a great many people for a
considerable period and noticeably it is not really a reliable source
of power. When the sun runs away and hides your lights go out.

That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.

The Rutan Voyager flew around the world in 1986
without stopping or refueling and was airborne for 216+ hours and flew
26,366 statue miles.

Right. It got some headlines, too. But it wasn't solar powered. It
isn't going to create a new awareness for gasoline. d8-)

Yup. New awareness. Well, they have a solar powered land racing, I
believe in Australia is, something like 3,000 miles long. And it has
been going on since 1987. Has there been new awareness in the car
industry?


While it certainly is a feat it isn't anything really new or
innovative in aeronautics.

This isn't about aeronautics.


By the way, the record for a model airplane - with no power - seems to
be 36h 3mn 19s :-)

Do you know who Bob Hatchek is? Google his name. He and I were editors
together at _American Machinist_. I got a dose of model gliders every
day at lunch, for years. g

Yup, he designed the "Hatchek Hook" which I saw illustrated in one of
the model magazines although when I was flying tow line gliders we
used a different, home made, rubber band powered hook.
--
cheers,

John B.

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:50:24 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:


But... at least from all I can find, the Solar Impulse is very much
a
powered glider. Powered with an electric motor(s) true but as an
airplane not a really new thing. It is made of new materials and
self
charges but what else?

It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

But so what? Is it really important that something is powered with
electricity flew? Good Lord, electric powered model airplanes have
been flying for some time now. It is not new!

Some time ago some blokes flew a human powered airplane across the
English Channel and everyone clapped their hands and shouted, but so
far I haven't seen that technology used commercially.

After all Solar power has been used by a great many people for a
considerable period and noticeably it is not really a reliable
source
of power. When the sun runs away and hides your lights go out.

That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.

The Rutan Voyager flew around the world in 1986
without stopping or refueling and was airborne for 216+ hours and
flew
26,366 statue miles.

Right. It got some headlines, too. But it wasn't solar powered. It
isn't going to create a new awareness for gasoline. d8-)

Yup. New awareness. Well, they have a solar powered land racing, I
believe in Australia is, something like 3,000 miles long. And it has
been going on since 1987. Has there been new awareness in the car
industry?


John B.

I worked as lithium battery tech for an electric vehicle engineer who
had helped build one of those solar cars, possibly Sunraycer. He
wasn't particularly excited about the practical value of solar powered
transportation.

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:42:19 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:50:24 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:43:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:58:12 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:56:38 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:47:30 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 07:07:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 11:01:04 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:15ifpa9f3nn0gdc35at3t7an528d6sbe7i@4a x.com...
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 07:28:17 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:
...
This is the sort of accomplishment that has real significance:
http://airminded.org/2009/10/23/the-great-air-race/

In what sense?

"Could any more striking contrast be imagined than the weariness and
exhaustion of Scott and Black and the pleasant excitement of
Parmentier's passengers, who flew in the world's most notable race
as
tourists?"

First place went to a custom British racer, second to a standard US
airliner which stopped for passengers. The DC-2 was an early version
of the classic DC-3, the 247D its similar Boeing competitor. The
British winner was made of wood.


--
Ed Huntress

Are you really unable to see the significance of an American
commercial airliner nearly beating a purpose-built British racing
plane?

Not since the dementia hit him several years ago, no.

So what was the significance, Larry? Another American commercial
airliner, the Lockheed Electra, set an around-the-world speed record,
and numerous other records, and was a contemporary of the Douglas
planes. Why are they not more significant?

Oh, you don't know? Neither does anyone else. All of this
"significance" crap is a question of what you think is most important.

You're just blowing smoke again.

Actually the DC-2 won the race (on handicap :-) but was about 20 hours
slower than the outright winner, the Dehaviland DH-88 for the entire
trip which would seem to prove that the DC-2 was the more reliable
plane as the DH had a cruising speed of 220 MPH while the DC-2 was
probably about 160 MPH.

The DC-2 was an understressed, reliable step in the development of
commercial airliners. There's a great story I enjoyed reading about
one some years ago, which flew through an icestorm in the Midwest,
contnued flying and landed safely with heavily iced wings. The pilot
said a DC-3 never would have stayed aloft under those conditions.

When I was going to school in Miami there was a D-2 in one of the
hangers. There were people working on it and eventually it left.
Someone said that it had been taken to S. America to fly there.

In Vietnam I worked on DC-3's that were as old as I was :-)

There were many pivotal developments in aircraft, about any one of
which we could debate their "significance." Amidst the engineering, I
think we lose sight, however, of accomplishments that reflect a new
awareness on the part of the general public. A race winner may catch
attention for a moment. But an accomplishment like
continent-to-continent nonstop transatlantic flight (as opposed to,
say, island-to-island g) provoked a new awareness. Breaking the
sound "barrier" provoked a new awareness. Flying a manned aircraft on
solar power, across much of the Pacific in one hop, provokes a new
awareness.

But... at least from all I can find, the Solar Impulse is very much a
powered glider. Powered with an electric motor(s) true but as an
airplane not a really new thing. It is made of new materials and self
charges but what else?

It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

But so what? Is it really important that something is powered with
electricity flew? Good Lord, electric powered model airplanes have
been flying for some time now. It is not new!

I think the best thing to say about it at this point is that you and
Jim are good examples of why I got out of engineering school after two
years. g I'll leave you to judge that, but the accurate thing is
that I didn't like the mechanistic perspective.

Did you do quick-draws with your log-log duplex decitrig slide rules
in the hallway? Seeing that was the thing that pushed me over the top.
d8-)

It's a different world view. And it is consuming. And it is
inherently, irredeemably reductive.

I'm thankful that I can get a thrill out of the whole idea.


Some time ago some blokes flew a human powered airplane across the
English Channel and everyone clapped their hands and shouted, but so
far I haven't seen that technology used commercially.

Commercialization of the technology had nothing whatsoever to do with
why people clapped.


After all Solar power has been used by a great many people for a
considerable period and noticeably it is not really a reliable source
of power. When the sun runs away and hides your lights go out.

When the sun ran away from the airplane in question, the motors didn't
stop turning.


That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.

The Rutan Voyager flew around the world in 1986
without stopping or refueling and was airborne for 216+ hours and flew
26,366 statue miles.

Right. It got some headlines, too. But it wasn't solar powered. It
isn't going to create a new awareness for gasoline. d8-)

Yup. New awareness. Well, they have a solar powered land racing, I
believe in Australia is, something like 3,000 miles long. And it has
been going on since 1987. Has there been new awareness in the car
industry?

The car industry is full of engineers. d8-) Again, it was never the
point.



While it certainly is a feat it isn't anything really new or
innovative in aeronautics.

This isn't about aeronautics.


By the way, the record for a model airplane - with no power - seems to
be 36h 3mn 19s :-)

Do you know who Bob Hatchek is? Google his name. He and I were editors
together at _American Machinist_. I got a dose of model gliders every
day at lunch, for years. g

Yup, he designed the "Hatchek Hook" which I saw illustrated in one of
the model magazines although when I was flying tow line gliders we
used a different, home made, rubber band powered hook.

Bob made his hooks on one of the old Unimats, the one with the round
ways. He used music wire for cutting tools and built a home-made
quick-change turret for it. It still is the only commercial production
I've seen performed on a Unimat.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:42:19 +0700, John B.
wrote:


I think the best thing to say about it at this point is that you and
Jim are good examples of why I got out of engineering school after
two
years. g I'll leave you to judge that, but the accurate thing is
that I didn't like the mechanistic perspective.

Did you do quick-draws with your log-log duplex decitrig slide rules
in the hallway? Seeing that was the thing that pushed me over the
top.
d8-)

It's a different world view. And it is consuming. And it is
inherently, irredeemably reductive.

I'm thankful that I can get a thrill out of the whole idea.

--
Ed Huntress

You scorn when I quote hard science, and equally when I quote epic
poetry. Where is your little comfort zone in between them?

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:33:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:42:19 +0700, John B.
wrote:


I think the best thing to say about it at this point is that you and
Jim are good examples of why I got out of engineering school after
two
years. g I'll leave you to judge that, but the accurate thing is
that I didn't like the mechanistic perspective.

Did you do quick-draws with your log-log duplex decitrig slide rules
in the hallway? Seeing that was the thing that pushed me over the
top.
d8-)

It's a different world view. And it is consuming. And it is
inherently, irredeemably reductive.

I'm thankful that I can get a thrill out of the whole idea.

--
Ed Huntress

You scorn when I quote hard science, and equally when I quote epic
poetry. Where is your little comfort zone in between them?

I don't think I've scorned any genuine, hard science. I don't recall
your quotes of epic poetry. Although I enjoy some of the great epic
poems, I would not, personally, quote any of them to make a point of
any kind I can think of.

If you've noticed, 90% of what I scorn is scornfulness.

--
Ed Huntress

Gunner Asch on Sun, 05 Jul 2015 23:54:55 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Are you really unable to see the significance of an American
commercial airliner nearly beating a purpose-built British racing
plane?

Not since the dementia hit him several years ago, no.


I'd love to watch some of today's commercial passengers _attempt_ to
walk up and down the aisle to their seats in a grounded Gooney Bird.
And I'd love to fly as a crewman in a Spooky version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAFVuG2KQqk Arr, arr, arr!

I didn't get a chance to fly in one, but there was a Ju-52 tri
motor on the base in Spain. Very hard to think of those as "big
Airliners" - even in 1972.

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:33:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:42:19 +0700, John B.

wrote:


I think the best thing to say about it at this point is that you
and
Jim are good examples of why I got out of engineering school after
two
years. g I'll leave you to judge that, but the accurate thing is
that I didn't like the mechanistic perspective.

Did you do quick-draws with your log-log duplex decitrig slide
rules
in the hallway? Seeing that was the thing that pushed me over the
top.
d8-)

It's a different world view. And it is consuming. And it is
inherently, irredeemably reductive.

I'm thankful that I can get a thrill out of the whole idea.

--
Ed Huntress

You scorn when I quote hard science, and equally when I quote epic
poetry. Where is your little comfort zone in between them?

I don't think I've scorned any genuine, hard science. I don't recall
your quotes of epic poetry. Although I enjoy some of the great epic
poems, I would not, personally, quote any of them to make a point of
any kind I can think of.

If you've noticed, 90% of what I scorn is scornfulness.

--
Ed Huntress

On 6/15/2015 at 10:38PM you responded:
/*
These were once considered appropriate for the 6th grade:

http://www.bartleby.com/360/7/158.html

"Appropriate" for what? Background noise?
*/

-jsw

On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 06:31:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:33:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:42:19 +0700, John B.

wrote:


I think the best thing to say about it at this point is that you
and
Jim are good examples of why I got out of engineering school after
two
years. g I'll leave you to judge that, but the accurate thing is
that I didn't like the mechanistic perspective.

Did you do quick-draws with your log-log duplex decitrig slide
rules
in the hallway? Seeing that was the thing that pushed me over the
top.
d8-)

It's a different world view. And it is consuming. And it is
inherently, irredeemably reductive.

I'm thankful that I can get a thrill out of the whole idea.

--
Ed Huntress

You scorn when I quote hard science, and equally when I quote epic
poetry. Where is your little comfort zone in between them?

I don't think I've scorned any genuine, hard science. I don't recall
your quotes of epic poetry. Although I enjoy some of the great epic
poems, I would not, personally, quote any of them to make a point of
any kind I can think of.

If you've noticed, 90% of what I scorn is scornfulness.

--
Ed Huntress

On 6/15/2015 at 10:38PM you responded:
/*
These were once considered appropriate for the 6th grade:

http://www.bartleby.com/360/7/158.html

"Appropriate" for what? Background noise?
*/

That wasn't scorn for "Horatius at the Bridge." That was scorn for the
idea that it was "appropriate" for the 6th grade -- ever.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:10:52 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:50:24 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:


But... at least from all I can find, the Solar Impulse is very much
a
powered glider. Powered with an electric motor(s) true but as an
airplane not a really new thing. It is made of new materials and
self
charges but what else?

It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

But so what? Is it really important that something is powered with
electricity flew? Good Lord, electric powered model airplanes have
been flying for some time now. It is not new!

Some time ago some blokes flew a human powered airplane across the
English Channel and everyone clapped their hands and shouted, but so
far I haven't seen that technology used commercially.

After all Solar power has been used by a great many people for a
considerable period and noticeably it is not really a reliable
source
of power. When the sun runs away and hides your lights go out.

That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.

The Rutan Voyager flew around the world in 1986
without stopping or refueling and was airborne for 216+ hours and
flew
26,366 statue miles.

Right. It got some headlines, too. But it wasn't solar powered. It
isn't going to create a new awareness for gasoline. d8-)

Yup. New awareness. Well, they have a solar powered land racing, I
believe in Australia is, something like 3,000 miles long. And it has
been going on since 1987. Has there been new awareness in the car
industry?


John B.

I worked as lithium battery tech for an electric vehicle engineer who
had helped build one of those solar cars, possibly Sunraycer. He
wasn't particularly excited about the practical value of solar powered
transportation.



Years ago I was on th periphery of Formula Ford racing in S.
California. Met a bunch of both owners and builders and I don't
remember any of them worrying about any practical value. Mostly they
talked about ways to cheap without getting caught :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 21:13:13 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:42:19 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:50:24 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:43:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:58:12 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:56:38 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:47:30 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 07:07:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 11:01:04 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:15ifpa9f3nn0gdc35at3t7an528d6sbe7i@4 ax.com...
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 07:28:17 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:
...
This is the sort of accomplishment that has real significance:
http://airminded.org/2009/10/23/the-great-air-race/

In what sense?

"Could any more striking contrast be imagined than the weariness and
exhaustion of Scott and Black and the pleasant excitement of
Parmentier's passengers, who flew in the world's most notable race
as
tourists?"

First place went to a custom British racer, second to a standard US
airliner which stopped for passengers. The DC-2 was an early version
of the classic DC-3, the 247D its similar Boeing competitor. The
British winner was made of wood.


--
Ed Huntress

Are you really unable to see the significance of an American
commercial airliner nearly beating a purpose-built British racing
plane?

Not since the dementia hit him several years ago, no.

So what was the significance, Larry? Another American commercial
airliner, the Lockheed Electra, set an around-the-world speed record,
and numerous other records, and was a contemporary of the Douglas
planes. Why are they not more significant?

Oh, you don't know? Neither does anyone else. All of this
"significance" crap is a question of what you think is most important.

You're just blowing smoke again.

Actually the DC-2 won the race (on handicap :-) but was about 20 hours
slower than the outright winner, the Dehaviland DH-88 for the entire
trip which would seem to prove that the DC-2 was the more reliable
plane as the DH had a cruising speed of 220 MPH while the DC-2 was
probably about 160 MPH.

The DC-2 was an understressed, reliable step in the development of
commercial airliners. There's a great story I enjoyed reading about
one some years ago, which flew through an icestorm in the Midwest,
contnued flying and landed safely with heavily iced wings. The pilot
said a DC-3 never would have stayed aloft under those conditions.

When I was going to school in Miami there was a D-2 in one of the
hangers. There were people working on it and eventually it left.
Someone said that it had been taken to S. America to fly there.

In Vietnam I worked on DC-3's that were as old as I was :-)

There were many pivotal developments in aircraft, about any one of
which we could debate their "significance." Amidst the engineering, I
think we lose sight, however, of accomplishments that reflect a new
awareness on the part of the general public. A race winner may catch
attention for a moment. But an accomplishment like
continent-to-continent nonstop transatlantic flight (as opposed to,
say, island-to-island g) provoked a new awareness. Breaking the
sound "barrier" provoked a new awareness. Flying a manned aircraft on
solar power, across much of the Pacific in one hop, provokes a new
awareness.

But... at least from all I can find, the Solar Impulse is very much a
powered glider. Powered with an electric motor(s) true but as an
airplane not a really new thing. It is made of new materials and self
charges but what else?

It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

But so what? Is it really important that something is powered with
electricity flew? Good Lord, electric powered model airplanes have
been flying for some time now. It is not new!

I think the best thing to say about it at this point is that you and
Jim are good examples of why I got out of engineering school after two
years. g I'll leave you to judge that, but the accurate thing is
that I didn't like the mechanistic perspective.

Did you do quick-draws with your log-log duplex decitrig slide rules
in the hallway? Seeing that was the thing that pushed me over the top.
d8-)

It's a different world view. And it is consuming. And it is
inherently, irredeemably reductive.

I'm thankful that I can get a thrill out of the whole idea.


Some time ago some blokes flew a human powered airplane across the
English Channel and everyone clapped their hands and shouted, but so
far I haven't seen that technology used commercially.

Commercialization of the technology had nothing whatsoever to do with
why people clapped.


Of course not and I thing I said that it was a feat. But a practical
one?


After all Solar power has been used by a great many people for a
considerable period and noticeably it is not really a reliable source
of power. When the sun runs away and hides your lights go out.

When the sun ran away from the airplane in question, the motors didn't
stop turning.

Hopefully not, but they had a very strict schedule of flying above any
cloud cover to charge in daylight hours and at a lower altitude at
night. Had they encountered high altitude cloud coverage they might
have has a different story to tell.


That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.

The Rutan Voyager flew around the world in 1986
without stopping or refueling and was airborne for 216+ hours and flew
26,366 statue miles.

Right. It got some headlines, too. But it wasn't solar powered. It
isn't going to create a new awareness for gasoline. d8-)

Yup. New awareness. Well, they have a solar powered land racing, I
believe in Australia is, something like 3,000 miles long. And it has
been going on since 1987. Has there been new awareness in the car
industry?

The car industry is full of engineers. d8-) Again, it was never the
point.



While it certainly is a feat it isn't anything really new or
innovative in aeronautics.

This isn't about aeronautics.


By the way, the record for a model airplane - with no power - seems to
be 36h 3mn 19s :-)

Do you know who Bob Hatchek is? Google his name. He and I were editors
together at _American Machinist_. I got a dose of model gliders every
day at lunch, for years. g

Yup, he designed the "Hatchek Hook" which I saw illustrated in one of
the model magazines although when I was flying tow line gliders we
used a different, home made, rubber band powered hook.

Bob made his hooks on one of the old Unimats, the one with the round
ways. He used music wire for cutting tools and built a home-made
quick-change turret for it. It still is the only commercial production
I've seen performed on a Unimat.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 20:05:50 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:10:52 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:50:24 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:


But... at least from all I can find, the Solar Impulse is very much
a
powered glider. Powered with an electric motor(s) true but as an
airplane not a really new thing. It is made of new materials and
self
charges but what else?

It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

But so what? Is it really important that something is powered with
electricity flew? Good Lord, electric powered model airplanes have
been flying for some time now. It is not new!

Some time ago some blokes flew a human powered airplane across the
English Channel and everyone clapped their hands and shouted, but so
far I haven't seen that technology used commercially.

After all Solar power has been used by a great many people for a
considerable period and noticeably it is not really a reliable
source
of power. When the sun runs away and hides your lights go out.

That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.

The Rutan Voyager flew around the world in 1986
without stopping or refueling and was airborne for 216+ hours and
flew
26,366 statue miles.

Right. It got some headlines, too. But it wasn't solar powered. It
isn't going to create a new awareness for gasoline. d8-)

Yup. New awareness. Well, they have a solar powered land racing, I
believe in Australia is, something like 3,000 miles long. And it has
been going on since 1987. Has there been new awareness in the car
industry?


John B.

I worked as lithium battery tech for an electric vehicle engineer who
had helped build one of those solar cars, possibly Sunraycer. He
wasn't particularly excited about the practical value of solar powered
transportation.



Years ago I was on th periphery of Formula Ford racing in S.
California. Met a bunch of both owners and builders and I don't
remember any of them worrying about any practical value. Mostly they
talked about ways to cheap without getting caught :-)

And, as a former SCCA and CART tech inspector, I probably caught more
violators in FF than in any other class. We called it the "Tyro"
class. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 20:21:59 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 21:13:13 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:42:19 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:50:24 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:43:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:58:12 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:56:38 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:47:30 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 07:07:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 11:01:04 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:15ifpa9f3nn0gdc35at3t7an528d6sbe7i@ 4ax.com...
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 07:28:17 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:
...
This is the sort of accomplishment that has real significance:
http://airminded.org/2009/10/23/the-great-air-race/

In what sense?

"Could any more striking contrast be imagined than the weariness and
exhaustion of Scott and Black and the pleasant excitement of
Parmentier's passengers, who flew in the world's most notable race
as
tourists?"

First place went to a custom British racer, second to a standard US
airliner which stopped for passengers. The DC-2 was an early version
of the classic DC-3, the 247D its similar Boeing competitor. The
British winner was made of wood.


--
Ed Huntress

Are you really unable to see the significance of an American
commercial airliner nearly beating a purpose-built British racing
plane?

Not since the dementia hit him several years ago, no.

So what was the significance, Larry? Another American commercial
airliner, the Lockheed Electra, set an around-the-world speed record,
and numerous other records, and was a contemporary of the Douglas
planes. Why are they not more significant?

Oh, you don't know? Neither does anyone else. All of this
"significance" crap is a question of what you think is most important.

You're just blowing smoke again.

Actually the DC-2 won the race (on handicap :-) but was about 20 hours
slower than the outright winner, the Dehaviland DH-88 for the entire
trip which would seem to prove that the DC-2 was the more reliable
plane as the DH had a cruising speed of 220 MPH while the DC-2 was
probably about 160 MPH.

The DC-2 was an understressed, reliable step in the development of
commercial airliners. There's a great story I enjoyed reading about
one some years ago, which flew through an icestorm in the Midwest,
contnued flying and landed safely with heavily iced wings. The pilot
said a DC-3 never would have stayed aloft under those conditions.

When I was going to school in Miami there was a D-2 in one of the
hangers. There were people working on it and eventually it left.
Someone said that it had been taken to S. America to fly there.

In Vietnam I worked on DC-3's that were as old as I was :-)

There were many pivotal developments in aircraft, about any one of
which we could debate their "significance." Amidst the engineering, I
think we lose sight, however, of accomplishments that reflect a new
awareness on the part of the general public. A race winner may catch
attention for a moment. But an accomplishment like
continent-to-continent nonstop transatlantic flight (as opposed to,
say, island-to-island g) provoked a new awareness. Breaking the
sound "barrier" provoked a new awareness. Flying a manned aircraft on
solar power, across much of the Pacific in one hop, provokes a new
awareness.

But... at least from all I can find, the Solar Impulse is very much a
powered glider. Powered with an electric motor(s) true but as an
airplane not a really new thing. It is made of new materials and self
charges but what else?

It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

But so what? Is it really important that something is powered with
electricity flew? Good Lord, electric powered model airplanes have
been flying for some time now. It is not new!

I think the best thing to say about it at this point is that you and
Jim are good examples of why I got out of engineering school after two
years. g I'll leave you to judge that, but the accurate thing is
that I didn't like the mechanistic perspective.

Did you do quick-draws with your log-log duplex decitrig slide rules
in the hallway? Seeing that was the thing that pushed me over the top.
d8-)

It's a different world view. And it is consuming. And it is
inherently, irredeemably reductive.

I'm thankful that I can get a thrill out of the whole idea.


Some time ago some blokes flew a human powered airplane across the
English Channel and everyone clapped their hands and shouted, but so
far I haven't seen that technology used commercially.

Commercialization of the technology had nothing whatsoever to do with
why people clapped.


Of course not and I thing I said that it was a feat. But a practical
one?

Of course not. Practicality was never an issue.



After all Solar power has been used by a great many people for a
considerable period and noticeably it is not really a reliable source
of power. When the sun runs away and hides your lights go out.

When the sun ran away from the airplane in question, the motors didn't
stop turning.

Hopefully not, but they had a very strict schedule of flying above any
cloud cover to charge in daylight hours and at a lower altitude at
night. Had they encountered high altitude cloud coverage they might
have has a different story to tell.


That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.

The Rutan Voyager flew around the world in 1986
without stopping or refueling and was airborne for 216+ hours and flew
26,366 statue miles.

Right. It got some headlines, too. But it wasn't solar powered. It
isn't going to create a new awareness for gasoline. d8-)

Yup. New awareness. Well, they have a solar powered land racing, I
believe in Australia is, something like 3,000 miles long. And it has
been going on since 1987. Has there been new awareness in the car
industry?

The car industry is full of engineers. d8-) Again, it was never the
point.



While it certainly is a feat it isn't anything really new or
innovative in aeronautics.

This isn't about aeronautics.


By the way, the record for a model airplane - with no power - seems to
be 36h 3mn 19s :-)

Do you know who Bob Hatchek is? Google his name. He and I were editors
together at _American Machinist_. I got a dose of model gliders every
day at lunch, for years. g

Yup, he designed the "Hatchek Hook" which I saw illustrated in one of
the model magazines although when I was flying tow line gliders we
used a different, home made, rubber band powered hook.

Bob made his hooks on one of the old Unimats, the one with the round
ways. He used music wire for cutting tools and built a home-made
quick-change turret for it. It still is the only commercial production
I've seen performed on a Unimat.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 06:31:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:33:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:42:19 +0700, John B.

wrote:


I think the best thing to say about it at this point is that you
and
Jim are good examples of why I got out of engineering school
after
two
years. g I'll leave you to judge that, but the accurate thing
is
that I didn't like the mechanistic perspective.

Did you do quick-draws with your log-log duplex decitrig slide
rules
in the hallway? Seeing that was the thing that pushed me over
the
top.
d8-)

It's a different world view. And it is consuming. And it is
inherently, irredeemably reductive.

I'm thankful that I can get a thrill out of the whole idea.

--
Ed Huntress

You scorn when I quote hard science, and equally when I quote epic
poetry. Where is your little comfort zone in between them?

I don't think I've scorned any genuine, hard science. I don't
recall
your quotes of epic poetry. Although I enjoy some of the great
epic
poems, I would not, personally, quote any of them to make a point
of
any kind I can think of.

If you've noticed, 90% of what I scorn is scornfulness.

--
Ed Huntress

On 6/15/2015 at 10:38PM you responded:
/*
These were once considered appropriate for the 6th grade:

http://www.bartleby.com/360/7/158.html

"Appropriate" for what? Background noise?
*/

That wasn't scorn for "Horatius at the Bridge." That was scorn for
the
idea that it was "appropriate" for the 6th grade -- ever.

--
Ed Huntress

We read it in 6th or 7th grade and then had a reasonably intelligent
discussion of a sense of duty to one's country or its politicians. We
had been following and writing essays on the Cold War current events
of the 1950's and had a fair idea of what a soldier might have to do,
like invade a bikini-filled beach in Lebanon or bail out over Russia.

In 7th grade I was reading Roman history in Latin.

-jsw

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 9:05:54 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:10:52 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:50:24 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:


But... at least from all I can find, the Solar Impulse is very much
a
powered glider. Powered with an electric motor(s) true but as an
airplane not a really new thing. It is made of new materials and
self
charges but what else?

It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

But so what? Is it really important that something is powered with
electricity flew? Good Lord, electric powered model airplanes have
been flying for some time now. It is not new!

Some time ago some blokes flew a human powered airplane across the
English Channel and everyone clapped their hands and shouted, but so
far I haven't seen that technology used commercially.

After all Solar power has been used by a great many people for a
considerable period and noticeably it is not really a reliable
source
of power. When the sun runs away and hides your lights go out.

That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.

The Rutan Voyager flew around the world in 1986
without stopping or refueling and was airborne for 216+ hours and
flew
26,366 statue miles.

Right. It got some headlines, too. But it wasn't solar powered. It
isn't going to create a new awareness for gasoline. d8-)

Yup. New awareness. Well, they have a solar powered land racing, I
believe in Australia is, something like 3,000 miles long. And it has
been going on since 1987. Has there been new awareness in the car
industry?


John B.

I worked as lithium battery tech for an electric vehicle engineer who
had helped build one of those solar cars, possibly Sunraycer. He
wasn't particularly excited about the practical value of solar powered
transportation.

Years ago I was on th periphery of Formula Ford racing in
S. California. Met a bunch of both owners and builders and
I don't remember any of them worrying about any practical value.
Mostly they talked about ways to cheap without getting caught :-)

Come to think of it, where DON'T they talk about saving money?

On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:46:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 06:31:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:33:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:42:19 +0700, John B.

wrote:


I think the best thing to say about it at this point is that you
and
Jim are good examples of why I got out of engineering school
after
two
years. g I'll leave you to judge that, but the accurate thing
is
that I didn't like the mechanistic perspective.

Did you do quick-draws with your log-log duplex decitrig slide
rules
in the hallway? Seeing that was the thing that pushed me over
the
top.
d8-)

It's a different world view. And it is consuming. And it is
inherently, irredeemably reductive.

I'm thankful that I can get a thrill out of the whole idea.

--
Ed Huntress

You scorn when I quote hard science, and equally when I quote epic
poetry. Where is your little comfort zone in between them?

I don't think I've scorned any genuine, hard science. I don't
recall
your quotes of epic poetry. Although I enjoy some of the great
epic
poems, I would not, personally, quote any of them to make a point
of
any kind I can think of.

If you've noticed, 90% of what I scorn is scornfulness.

--
Ed Huntress

On 6/15/2015 at 10:38PM you responded:
/*
These were once considered appropriate for the 6th grade:

http://www.bartleby.com/360/7/158.html

"Appropriate" for what? Background noise?
*/

That wasn't scorn for "Horatius at the Bridge." That was scorn for
the
idea that it was "appropriate" for the 6th grade -- ever.

--
Ed Huntress

We read it in 6th or 7th grade and then had a reasonably intelligent
discussion of a sense of duty to one's country or its politicians.

I'll surmise that it required a lot of background reading:

---------------------------------

And plainly and more plainly
Now might the burghers know,
By port and vest, by horse and crest,
Each warlike Lucumo:
There Cilnius of Arretium
On his fleet roan was seen;
And Astur of the fourfold shield,
Girt with the brand none else may wield;
Tolumnius with the belt of gold,
And dark Verbenna from the hold
By reedy Thrasymene.

--------------------------------

We
had been following and writing essays on the Cold War current events
of the 1950's and had a fair idea of what a soldier might have to do,
like invade a bikini-filled beach in Lebanon or bail out over Russia.

In 7th grade I was reading Roman history in Latin.

-jsw

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:46:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 06:31:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:33:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
newsm8mpatb19j9he6ng86hjpenhj4mlh569b@4ax. com...
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:42:19 +0700, John B.

wrote:


I think the best thing to say about it at this point is that
you
and
Jim are good examples of why I got out of engineering school
after
two
years. g I'll leave you to judge that, but the accurate
thing
is
that I didn't like the mechanistic perspective.

Did you do quick-draws with your log-log duplex decitrig slide
rules
in the hallway? Seeing that was the thing that pushed me over
the
top.
d8-)

It's a different world view. And it is consuming. And it is
inherently, irredeemably reductive.

I'm thankful that I can get a thrill out of the whole idea.

--
Ed Huntress

You scorn when I quote hard science, and equally when I quote
epic
poetry. Where is your little comfort zone in between them?

I don't think I've scorned any genuine, hard science. I don't
recall
your quotes of epic poetry. Although I enjoy some of the great
epic
poems, I would not, personally, quote any of them to make a
point
of
any kind I can think of.

If you've noticed, 90% of what I scorn is scornfulness.

--
Ed Huntress

On 6/15/2015 at 10:38PM you responded:
/*
These were once considered appropriate for the 6th grade:

http://www.bartleby.com/360/7/158.html

"Appropriate" for what? Background noise?
*/

That wasn't scorn for "Horatius at the Bridge." That was scorn for
the
idea that it was "appropriate" for the 6th grade -- ever.

--
Ed Huntress

We read it in 6th or 7th grade and then had a reasonably intelligent
discussion of a sense of duty to one's country or its politicians.

I'll surmise that it required a lot of background reading:

---------------------------------

And plainly and more plainly
Now might the burghers know,
By port and vest, by horse and crest,
Each warlike Lucumo:
There Cilnius of Arretium
On his fleet roan was seen;
And Astur of the fourfold shield,
Girt with the brand none else may wield;
Tolumnius with the belt of gold,
And dark Verbenna from the hold
By reedy Thrasymene.

--------------------------------

We
had been following and writing essays on the Cold War current events
of the 1950's and had a fair idea of what a soldier might have to
do,
like invade a bikini-filled beach in Lebanon or bail out over
Russia.

In 7th grade I was reading Roman history in Latin.

-jsw

The teacher answered any questions. IIRC the fight made us forget the
preliminary details.

I had more trouble with "The Enemy Below" because I didn't know terms
like Depth Charge and Diving Plane. In the book a front diving plane
slices into the destroyer below the waterline as they collide. In the
real battle a large wave dropped the USS Borie onto the U-405.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Borie_(DD-215)
"This was a unique battle: unlike most other modern naval battles, it
was decided by ramming and small arms fire at extremely close range."

-jsw

On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:42:44 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:46:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 06:31:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:33:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
newsm8mpatb19j9he6ng86hjpenhj4mlh569b@4ax .com...
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:42:19 +0700, John B.

wrote:


I think the best thing to say about it at this point is that
you
and
Jim are good examples of why I got out of engineering school
after
two
years. g I'll leave you to judge that, but the accurate
thing
is
that I didn't like the mechanistic perspective.

Did you do quick-draws with your log-log duplex decitrig slide
rules
in the hallway? Seeing that was the thing that pushed me over
the
top.
d8-)

It's a different world view. And it is consuming. And it is
inherently, irredeemably reductive.

I'm thankful that I can get a thrill out of the whole idea.

--
Ed Huntress

You scorn when I quote hard science, and equally when I quote
epic
poetry. Where is your little comfort zone in between them?

I don't think I've scorned any genuine, hard science. I don't
recall
your quotes of epic poetry. Although I enjoy some of the great
epic
poems, I would not, personally, quote any of them to make a
point
of
any kind I can think of.

If you've noticed, 90% of what I scorn is scornfulness.

--
Ed Huntress

On 6/15/2015 at 10:38PM you responded:
/*
These were once considered appropriate for the 6th grade:

http://www.bartleby.com/360/7/158.html

"Appropriate" for what? Background noise?
*/

That wasn't scorn for "Horatius at the Bridge." That was scorn for
the
idea that it was "appropriate" for the 6th grade -- ever.

--
Ed Huntress

We read it in 6th or 7th grade and then had a reasonably intelligent
discussion of a sense of duty to one's country or its politicians.

I'll surmise that it required a lot of background reading:

---------------------------------

And plainly and more plainly
Now might the burghers know,
By port and vest, by horse and crest,
Each warlike Lucumo:
There Cilnius of Arretium
On his fleet roan was seen;
And Astur of the fourfold shield,
Girt with the brand none else may wield;
Tolumnius with the belt of gold,
And dark Verbenna from the hold
By reedy Thrasymene.

--------------------------------

We
had been following and writing essays on the Cold War current events
of the 1950's and had a fair idea of what a soldier might have to
do,
like invade a bikini-filled beach in Lebanon or bail out over
Russia.

In 7th grade I was reading Roman history in Latin.

-jsw

The teacher answered any questions. IIRC the fight made us forget the
preliminary details.

I had more trouble with "The Enemy Below" because I didn't know terms
like Depth Charge and Diving Plane. In the book a front diving plane
slices into the destroyer below the waterline as they collide. In the
real battle a large wave dropped the USS Borie onto the U-405.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Borie_(DD-215)
"This was a unique battle: unlike most other modern naval battles, it
was decided by ramming and small arms fire at extremely close range."

-jsw

Some hardcore *******s on both boats. My salute to both crews!

Gunner

On 7/7/2015 3:42 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Borie_(DD-215)
"This was a unique battle: unlike most other modern naval battles, it
was decided by ramming and small arms fire at extremely close range."

That's an amazing story. No Borie crewmen were lost in the fight, but
it was sad to read that after abandoning the Borie: "... three officers
and 24 enlisted men were lost during the rescue operation. Hutchins
reported, "Many of the lost were just unable to get over the side" of
the two rescuing destroyers."

****, couldn't the rescuing crew have thrown them ropes & pulled them over?

"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message
...
On 7/7/2015 3:42 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Borie_(DD-215)
"This was a unique battle: unlike most other modern naval battles,
it
was decided by ramming and small arms fire at extremely close
range."

That's an amazing story. No Borie crewmen were lost in the fight,
but it was sad to read that after abandoning the Borie: "... three
officers and 24 enlisted men were lost during the rescue operation.
Hutchins reported, "Many of the lost were just unable to get over
the side" of the two rescuing destroyers."

****, couldn't the rescuing crew have thrown them ropes & pulled
them over?

This says they were knocked inconscious or drowned:
http://destroyerhistory.org/flushdeck/ussborie/

The waves were running to 20 feet by then.

-jsw

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message
...
On 7/7/2015 3:42 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Borie_(DD-215)
"This was a unique battle: unlike most other modern naval battles,
it
was decided by ramming and small arms fire at extremely close
range."

That's an amazing story. No Borie crewmen were lost in the fight,
but it was sad to read that after abandoning the Borie: "... three
officers and 24 enlisted men were lost during the rescue operation.
Hutchins reported, "Many of the lost were just unable to get over
the side" of the two rescuing destroyers."

****, couldn't the rescuing crew have thrown them ropes & pulled
them over?

This says they were knocked inconscious or drowned:
http://destroyerhistory.org/flushdeck/ussborie/

The waves were running to 20 feet by then.

-jsw

This has more detail:
http://www.volnation.com/forum/pub/2...1-october.html

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 10:11:35 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 20:05:50 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:10:52 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:50:24 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:


But... at least from all I can find, the Solar Impulse is very much
a
powered glider. Powered with an electric motor(s) true but as an
airplane not a really new thing. It is made of new materials and
self
charges but what else?

It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

But so what? Is it really important that something is powered with
electricity flew? Good Lord, electric powered model airplanes have
been flying for some time now. It is not new!

Some time ago some blokes flew a human powered airplane across the
English Channel and everyone clapped their hands and shouted, but so
far I haven't seen that technology used commercially.

After all Solar power has been used by a great many people for a
considerable period and noticeably it is not really a reliable
source
of power. When the sun runs away and hides your lights go out.

That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.

The Rutan Voyager flew around the world in 1986
without stopping or refueling and was airborne for 216+ hours and
flew
26,366 statue miles.

Right. It got some headlines, too. But it wasn't solar powered. It
isn't going to create a new awareness for gasoline. d8-)

Yup. New awareness. Well, they have a solar powered land racing, I
believe in Australia is, something like 3,000 miles long. And it has
been going on since 1987. Has there been new awareness in the car
industry?


John B.

I worked as lithium battery tech for an electric vehicle engineer who
had helped build one of those solar cars, possibly Sunraycer. He
wasn't particularly excited about the practical value of solar powered
transportation.



Years ago I was on th periphery of Formula Ford racing in S.
California. Met a bunch of both owners and builders and I don't
remember any of them worrying about any practical value. Mostly they
talked about ways to cheap without getting caught :-)

And, as a former SCCA and CART tech inspector, I probably caught more
violators in FF than in any other class. We called it the "Tyro"
class. d8-)

At Palmdale one time a FF went stuttering and stammering out of the
pits onto the track and someone said something like "Oh, that is old
Jack, he is really fast", and I said something like, "Probably, he
certainly has a cam in that thing", and the first guy says, "how did
you know?"

I've always suspected that a large percentage of the "also ran" had
very little technical knowledge :-)

There were a couple of guys that were trying to get into the chassis
making business - at that time nearly all FF chassis came from England
- and built a really sleek car. The first FF I saw with the radiators
mounted outboard ahead of the wheels. It was fast, really fast. They
entered it in a number of races and it always would be several times
faster than the rest of the FF pack.... but they never finished a
race. Would pull off into the pits and set out the last lap. I suspect
that the generated a lot of orders that way.

Of course, cars that didn't finish weren't inspected :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 10:24:36 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 10:11:35 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 20:05:50 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:10:52 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:50:24 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:


But... at least from all I can find, the Solar Impulse is very much
a
powered glider. Powered with an electric motor(s) true but as an
airplane not a really new thing. It is made of new materials and
self
charges but what else?

It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

But so what? Is it really important that something is powered with
electricity flew? Good Lord, electric powered model airplanes have
been flying for some time now. It is not new!

Some time ago some blokes flew a human powered airplane across the
English Channel and everyone clapped their hands and shouted, but so
far I haven't seen that technology used commercially.

After all Solar power has been used by a great many people for a
considerable period and noticeably it is not really a reliable
source
of power. When the sun runs away and hides your lights go out.

That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.

The Rutan Voyager flew around the world in 1986
without stopping or refueling and was airborne for 216+ hours and
flew
26,366 statue miles.

Right. It got some headlines, too. But it wasn't solar powered. It
isn't going to create a new awareness for gasoline. d8-)

Yup. New awareness. Well, they have a solar powered land racing, I
believe in Australia is, something like 3,000 miles long. And it has
been going on since 1987. Has there been new awareness in the car
industry?


John B.

I worked as lithium battery tech for an electric vehicle engineer who
had helped build one of those solar cars, possibly Sunraycer. He
wasn't particularly excited about the practical value of solar powered
transportation.



Years ago I was on th periphery of Formula Ford racing in S.
California. Met a bunch of both owners and builders and I don't
remember any of them worrying about any practical value. Mostly they
talked about ways to cheap without getting caught :-)

And, as a former SCCA and CART tech inspector, I probably caught more
violators in FF than in any other class. We called it the "Tyro"
class. d8-)

At Palmdale one time a FF went stuttering and stammering out of the
pits onto the track and someone said something like "Oh, that is old
Jack, he is really fast", and I said something like, "Probably, he
certainly has a cam in that thing", and the first guy says, "how did
you know?"

I've always suspected that a large percentage of the "also ran" had
very little technical knowledge :-)

There were a couple of guys that were trying to get into the chassis
making business - at that time nearly all FF chassis came from England
- and built a really sleek car. The first FF I saw with the radiators
mounted outboard ahead of the wheels. It was fast, really fast. They
entered it in a number of races and it always would be several times
faster than the rest of the FF pack.... but they never finished a
race. Would pull off into the pits and set out the last lap. I suspect
that the generated a lot of orders that way.

Of course, cars that didn't finish weren't inspected :-)

Right. One of the tricks in FF was to sneak in some Teflon main
bearings. They came from a supplier in the UK, where they were legal
for some kind of sedan racing.

Horsepower was so close in that class that just that little bit of
reduced friction could make a winner.

BTW, I drove an FF around the track a few times at Lime Rock Park, but
I never raced one. It was the most fun you could have with your pants
on -- like a go-cart with suspension and a real engine.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:33:57 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:36:48 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

On 7/6/2015 7:43 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
... The skipper of an ocean racer
needed rear view mirrors in case he was being overtaken by a faster US
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

That would be a great video: a long helicopter shot of this sleek racer
slicing through the water; zoom in on the racer to see its on-the-edge
trim, its heel, and the spray coming over as it sizzles along; the
essence of speed. From on-board the racer pan over to the discernible
shape of an approaching aircraft carrier. Stay on the carrier as it
nears the racer, growing larger and larger until it fills the frame,
dwarfing the racer as it passes. Then back to the chopper for the
opening view, but with the carrier pulling away and the racer looking
puny. I love it.

Bob


That..would be way cool!!
^ 5!!!!

They had something like that in the new movie, Battleship. Of course,
the puny racer was the USS Missouri and the carrier was the
all-purpose alien starship/aircraft carrier. GREAT movie fun.

--
We are always the same age inside.
-- Gertrude Stein

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 08:51:37 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:56:38 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:47:30 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 07:07:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 11:01:04 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:15ifpa9f3nn0gdc35at3t7an528d6sbe7i@4ax. com...
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 07:28:17 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:
...
This is the sort of accomplishment that has real significance:
http://airminded.org/2009/10/23/the-great-air-race/

In what sense?

"Could any more striking contrast be imagined than the
weariness and
exhaustion of Scott and Black and the pleasant excitement of
Parmentier's passengers, who flew in the world's most notable
race
as
tourists?"

First place went to a custom British racer, second to a
standard US
airliner which stopped for passengers. The DC-2 was an early
version
of the classic DC-3, the 247D its similar Boeing competitor.
The
British winner was made of wood.


--
Ed Huntress

Are you really unable to see the significance of an American
commercial airliner nearly beating a purpose-built British racing
plane?

Not since the dementia hit him several years ago, no.

So what was the significance, Larry? Another American commercial
airliner, the Lockheed Electra, set an around-the-world speed
record,
and numerous other records, and was a contemporary of the Douglas
planes. Why are they not more significant?

Oh, you don't know? Neither does anyone else. All of this
"significance" crap is a question of what you think is most
important.

You're just blowing smoke again.

Actually the DC-2 won the race (on handicap :-) but was about 20
hours
slower than the outright winner, the Dehaviland DH-88 for the entire
trip which would seem to prove that the DC-2 was the more reliable
plane as the DH had a cruising speed of 220 MPH while the DC-2 was
probably about 160 MPH.

The DC-2 was an understressed, reliable step in the development of
commercial airliners. There's a great story I enjoyed reading about
one some years ago, which flew through an icestorm in the Midwest,
contnued flying and landed safely with heavily iced wings. The pilot
said a DC-3 never would have stayed aloft under those conditions.

There were many pivotal developments in aircraft, about any one of
which we could debate their "significance." Amidst the engineering,
I
think we lose sight, however, of accomplishments that reflect a new
awareness on the part of the general public. A race winner may catch
attention for a moment. But an accomplishment like
continent-to-continent nonstop transatlantic flight (as opposed to,
say, island-to-island g) provoked a new awareness. Breaking the
sound "barrier" provoked a new awareness. Flying a manned aircraft
on
solar power, across much of the Pacific in one hop, provokes a new
awareness.

--
Ed Huntress

We are flooded with "awareness" by an advertising industry whose main
priority is selling its own relevance.

Precisely. Which is why I gave up all teevee and broadcast radio a
decade ago.

--
We are always the same age inside.
-- Gertrude Stein

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 23:35:40 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 10:24:36 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 10:11:35 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 20:05:50 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:10:52 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:50:24 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:


But... at least from all I can find, the Solar Impulse is very much
a
powered glider. Powered with an electric motor(s) true but as an
airplane not a really new thing. It is made of new materials and
self
charges but what else?

It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

But so what? Is it really important that something is powered with
electricity flew? Good Lord, electric powered model airplanes have
been flying for some time now. It is not new!

Some time ago some blokes flew a human powered airplane across the
English Channel and everyone clapped their hands and shouted, but so
far I haven't seen that technology used commercially.

After all Solar power has been used by a great many people for a
considerable period and noticeably it is not really a reliable
source
of power. When the sun runs away and hides your lights go out.

That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.

The Rutan Voyager flew around the world in 1986
without stopping or refueling and was airborne for 216+ hours and
flew
26,366 statue miles.

Right. It got some headlines, too. But it wasn't solar powered. It
isn't going to create a new awareness for gasoline. d8-)

Yup. New awareness. Well, they have a solar powered land racing, I
believe in Australia is, something like 3,000 miles long. And it has
been going on since 1987. Has there been new awareness in the car
industry?


John B.

I worked as lithium battery tech for an electric vehicle engineer who
had helped build one of those solar cars, possibly Sunraycer. He
wasn't particularly excited about the practical value of solar powered
transportation.



Years ago I was on th periphery of Formula Ford racing in S.
California. Met a bunch of both owners and builders and I don't
remember any of them worrying about any practical value. Mostly they
talked about ways to cheap without getting caught :-)

And, as a former SCCA and CART tech inspector, I probably caught more
violators in FF than in any other class. We called it the "Tyro"
class. d8-)

At Palmdale one time a FF went stuttering and stammering out of the
pits onto the track and someone said something like "Oh, that is old
Jack, he is really fast", and I said something like, "Probably, he
certainly has a cam in that thing", and the first guy says, "how did
you know?"

I've always suspected that a large percentage of the "also ran" had
very little technical knowledge :-)

There were a couple of guys that were trying to get into the chassis
making business - at that time nearly all FF chassis came from England
- and built a really sleek car. The first FF I saw with the radiators
mounted outboard ahead of the wheels. It was fast, really fast. They
entered it in a number of races and it always would be several times
faster than the rest of the FF pack.... but they never finished a
race. Would pull off into the pits and set out the last lap. I suspect
that the generated a lot of orders that way.

Of course, cars that didn't finish weren't inspected :-)

Right. One of the tricks in FF was to sneak in some Teflon main
bearings. They came from a supplier in the UK, where they were legal
for some kind of sedan racing.

Horsepower was so close in that class that just that little bit of
reduced friction could make a winner.

BTW, I drove an FF around the track a few times at Lime Rock Park, but
I never raced one. It was the most fun you could have with your pants
on -- like a go-cart with suspension and a real engine.

Yes, kind of fun. We occasionally took a car to Palmdale - in those
days you could rent use of the track - and I made a few laps in one
occasionally. I would roar around for a lap or so thinking I was
really the top dog and pull back into the pit area and the owner would
say something like, "is the car all right? It was such a slow lap" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 18:12:50 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 23:35:40 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 10:24:36 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 10:11:35 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 20:05:50 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:10:52 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
news:e66mpaddcegepe73k9sbl7qclagtj88m8k@4ax. com...
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:50:24 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:


But... at least from all I can find, the Solar Impulse is very much
a
powered glider. Powered with an electric motor(s) true but as an
airplane not a really new thing. It is made of new materials and
self
charges but what else?

It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

But so what? Is it really important that something is powered with
electricity flew? Good Lord, electric powered model airplanes have
been flying for some time now. It is not new!

Some time ago some blokes flew a human powered airplane across the
English Channel and everyone clapped their hands and shouted, but so
far I haven't seen that technology used commercially.

After all Solar power has been used by a great many people for a
considerable period and noticeably it is not really a reliable
source
of power. When the sun runs away and hides your lights go out.

That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.

The Rutan Voyager flew around the world in 1986
without stopping or refueling and was airborne for 216+ hours and
flew
26,366 statue miles.

Right. It got some headlines, too. But it wasn't solar powered. It
isn't going to create a new awareness for gasoline. d8-)

Yup. New awareness. Well, they have a solar powered land racing, I
believe in Australia is, something like 3,000 miles long. And it has
been going on since 1987. Has there been new awareness in the car
industry?


John B.

I worked as lithium battery tech for an electric vehicle engineer who
had helped build one of those solar cars, possibly Sunraycer. He
wasn't particularly excited about the practical value of solar powered
transportation.



Years ago I was on th periphery of Formula Ford racing in S.
California. Met a bunch of both owners and builders and I don't
remember any of them worrying about any practical value. Mostly they
talked about ways to cheap without getting caught :-)

And, as a former SCCA and CART tech inspector, I probably caught more
violators in FF than in any other class. We called it the "Tyro"
class. d8-)

At Palmdale one time a FF went stuttering and stammering out of the
pits onto the track and someone said something like "Oh, that is old
Jack, he is really fast", and I said something like, "Probably, he
certainly has a cam in that thing", and the first guy says, "how did
you know?"

I've always suspected that a large percentage of the "also ran" had
very little technical knowledge :-)

There were a couple of guys that were trying to get into the chassis
making business - at that time nearly all FF chassis came from England
- and built a really sleek car. The first FF I saw with the radiators
mounted outboard ahead of the wheels. It was fast, really fast. They
entered it in a number of races and it always would be several times
faster than the rest of the FF pack.... but they never finished a
race. Would pull off into the pits and set out the last lap. I suspect
that the generated a lot of orders that way.

Of course, cars that didn't finish weren't inspected :-)

Right. One of the tricks in FF was to sneak in some Teflon main
bearings. They came from a supplier in the UK, where they were legal
for some kind of sedan racing.

Horsepower was so close in that class that just that little bit of
reduced friction could make a winner.

BTW, I drove an FF around the track a few times at Lime Rock Park, but
I never raced one. It was the most fun you could have with your pants
on -- like a go-cart with suspension and a real engine.

Yes, kind of fun. We occasionally took a car to Palmdale - in those
days you could rent use of the track - and I made a few laps in one
occasionally. I would roar around for a lap or so thinking I was
really the top dog and pull back into the pit area and the owner would
say something like, "is the car all right? It was such a slow lap" :-)

g I know that feeling. I had a good sense of relative speed in my MG
Midget and my Alfa Romeo Giulietta. In the FF (and even more in a
F440), I felt like I was flying, even though I wasn't pushing hard.
But the lap times said otherwise. g

If you haven't driven open-wheeled cars very much, and I've only done
it on three occassions, carrying speed on fast bends is OK, but diving
deep into turns is a little freaky. I think it's because you're not
used to seeing the wheels, and doing so is not conducive to a sense of
security.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 1:16:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:46:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 06:31:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:33:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:42:19 +0700, John B.

wrote:


I think the best thing to say about it at this point is that you
and
Jim are good examples of why I got out of engineering school
after
two
years. g I'll leave you to judge that, but the accurate thing
is
that I didn't like the mechanistic perspective.

Did you do quick-draws with your log-log duplex decitrig slide
rules
in the hallway? Seeing that was the thing that pushed me over
the
top.
d8-)

It's a different world view. And it is consuming. And it is
inherently, irredeemably reductive.

I'm thankful that I can get a thrill out of the whole idea.

--
Ed Huntress

You scorn when I quote hard science, and equally when I quote epic
poetry. Where is your little comfort zone in between them?

I don't think I've scorned any genuine, hard science. I don't
recall
your quotes of epic poetry. Although I enjoy some of the great
epic
poems, I would not, personally, quote any of them to make a point
of
any kind I can think of.

If you've noticed, 90% of what I scorn is scornfulness.

--
Ed Huntress

On 6/15/2015 at 10:38PM you responded:
/*
These were once considered appropriate for the 6th grade:

http://www.bartleby.com/360/7/158.html

"Appropriate" for what? Background noise?
*/

That wasn't scorn for "Horatius at the Bridge." That was scorn for
the
idea that it was "appropriate" for the 6th grade -- ever.

--
Ed Huntress

We read it in 6th or 7th grade and then had a reasonably intelligent
discussion of a sense of duty to one's country or its politicians.

I'll surmise that it required a lot of background reading:

---------------------------------

And plainly and more plainly
Now might the burghers know,
By port and vest, by horse and crest,
Each warlike Lucumo:
There Cilnius of Arretium
On his fleet roan was seen;
And Astur of the fourfold shield,
Girt with the brand none else may wield;
Tolumnius with the belt of gold,
And dark Verbenna from the hold
By reedy Thrasymene.

The actual Publius Horatius Cocles was around in 509 BC. I don't know how accurate the poem is compared to the historical viewpoint.

We
had been following and writing essays on the Cold War current events
of the 1950's and had a fair idea of what a soldier might have to do,
like invade a bikini-filled beach in Lebanon or bail out over Russia.

In 7th grade I was reading Roman history in Latin.

I like the german language Wikipedia description of the actual Publius Horatius Cocles (who was around in 509 BC), it says that (cocles: lateinisch für einäugiger Mann) - "cocles" means one-eyed. Strange, I didn't notice that in the english language rundown.