"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If it isn't at the center of lift, teh plane will fall over. Fly by wire
wire is equivalent to riding a unicycle. It can be done, but requires
constant input.

Fly by wire has nothing to do with how stable the plane is.
Airbus use fly by wire as did concord but the planes are not particularly
unstable.

You are confusing making an unstable plane (stealth, F22, etc.) and needing
fly by wire to fly it with what fly by wire is, its just a control system
designed for a particular purpose.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:44:50 +0000, Dave wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

They typically start on gas (butane/propane) from an external can, & then run on kerosene

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If it isn't at the center of lift, teh plane will fall over. Fly by
wire wire is equivalent to riding a unicycle. It can be done, but
requires constant input.

Fly by wire has nothing to do with how stable the plane is.
Airbus use fly by wire as did concord but the planes are not
particularly unstable.

You are confusing making an unstable plane (stealth, F22, etc.) and
needing fly by wire to fly it with what fly by wire is, its just a
control system designed for a particular purpose.




Agreed. I as using it in the sense the person who first introduced it to
the thread, used it.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If it isn't at the center of lift, teh plane will fall over. Fly by
wire wire is equivalent to riding a unicycle. It can be done, but
requires constant input.

Fly by wire has nothing to do with how stable the plane is.

Correct

Airbus use fly by wire as did concord but the planes are not
particularly unstable.

As do quite a lot of stable aircraft, but the one thing they usually
have in common is a mechanical back up if their computers fail. Even the
true fly by wire and nothing else have a back up to get them home. It's
a bit like the engine management in a car. If it goes bits up, there is
still the ability to get you home in the software.

You are confusing making an unstable plane (stealth, F22, etc.)

Why would a stealth aircraft require fly by wire?

and
needing fly by wire to fly it with what fly by wire is, its just a
control system designed for a particular purpose.

The purpose is to allow a computer to fly the aircraft and nothing else.
Let the pilot get on with seducing the air stewardess, ready for the
sleepover. ;-)
Remember the Trident aircraft, the first to be cleared for take off and
landing in fog?
That was computer assisted flight.

Dave

On 15/02/10 19:16, Dave wrote:

You are confusing making an unstable plane (stealth, F22, etc.)

Why would a stealth aircraft require fly by wire?

It's not because of the stealth. Recent high performance jet fighters
are deliberately built to be unstable because it makes them more
maneuverable. It's not possible to control them with human reflexes so
fly-by-wire is necessary,





--
Bernard Peek

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just
takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

You can buy very small jet engines these days.
Same technology as cruise missiles.

I have yet to see a stealth fighter model (not that i have looked
much), they can only fly by wire as they are unstable.
It used to be quite common for models to not be quite the same as
the real thing in order to make them flyable.

If the original was fly by wire, then the centre of lift and centre
of gravity would have to be within a very short distance of each other.
That is the only way you could fly it without quadruplex computer
systems and a back up computer to get you home.

center of lift is ALWAYS on the center of gravity, by definition.

No it isn't. I have, on and off spent the last 30 years working on
turning stable centre of lift aircraft into fly by wire that were
unstable.

Starting with a Jaguar that was made slightly unstable by changing the
aerodynamics. Computers were added to compensate for flight for the
pilot.

Followed by the EAP (Experimental Aircraft Project). This had canards
at the front. This resulted in the development of the eurofighter
Typhone.


Shame you didnt do a basic physics course first.

That is definitely not my strong point, I have to say, but I think we
are going down the same street on this :-)

The function of fly by wire is to make sure that the CG IS at the centre
of lift, at all times..moving the elevators changes the center of lift
dramatically ;-)

None of the aircraft I worked on had elevators.
Tail planes, tailerons and canards were the norm.

Go back and check your definitions., I know what you are saying, but it
isn't the correct way to say it.

I will, thanks for pointing that out.

Dave

Mike Harrison wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:44:50 +0000, Dave wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.
Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

They typically start on gas (butane/propane) from an external can, & then run on kerosene

That rings a bell from discussions with my model flying computer guru.
Thanks

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...


Why would a stealth aircraft require fly by wire?

Because it is shaped to be stealthy rather than to fly.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If it isn't at the center of lift, teh plane will fall over. Fly by
wire wire is equivalent to riding a unicycle. It can be done, but
requires constant input.

Fly by wire has nothing to do with how stable the plane is.
Airbus use fly by wire as did concord but the planes are not
particularly unstable.

You are confusing making an unstable plane (stealth, F22, etc.) and
needing fly by wire to fly it with what fly by wire is, its just a
control system designed for a particular purpose.


A Sopwith Camel is unstable (at least in pitch) and certainly predates
electronic controls.

Andy

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Dave" wrote in message
...


Why would a stealth aircraft require fly by wire?

Because it is shaped to be stealthy rather than to fly.


Wossat dennis - the right shape to hide behind lamp posts, in doorways
and disguised in a fedora and Mac?

--
geoff

Dave wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:33:19 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Plenty of similar to be seen at any model airshow though. Just
takes a
deep pocket. And a lot of time.

Are the engines scaled-down RB211s or what? What fuel do they burn?

You can buy very small jet engines these days.
Same technology as cruise missiles.

I have yet to see a stealth fighter model (not that i have looked
much), they can only fly by wire as they are unstable.
It used to be quite common for models to not be quite the same as
the real thing in order to make them flyable.

If the original was fly by wire, then the centre of lift and centre
of gravity would have to be within a very short distance of each
other.
That is the only way you could fly it without quadruplex computer
systems and a back up computer to get you home.

center of lift is ALWAYS on the center of gravity, by definition.

No it isn't. I have, on and off spent the last 30 years working on
turning stable centre of lift aircraft into fly by wire that were
unstable.

Starting with a Jaguar that was made slightly unstable by changing
the aerodynamics. Computers were added to compensate for flight for
the pilot.

Followed by the EAP (Experimental Aircraft Project). This had canards
at the front. This resulted in the development of the eurofighter
Typhone.


Shame you didnt do a basic physics course first.

That is definitely not my strong point, I have to say, but I think we
are going down the same street on this :-)

The function of fly by wire is to make sure that the CG IS at the
centre of lift, at all times..moving the elevators changes the center
of lift dramatically ;-)

None of the aircraft I worked on had elevators.
Tail planes, tailerons and canards were the norm.


talerons are elevators, by another name. as are canards.


Go back and check your definitions., I know what you are saying, but
it isn't the correct way to say it.

I will, thanks for pointing that out.

Dave

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...


Why would a stealth aircraft require fly by wire?

Because it is shaped to be stealthy rather than to fly.



Stability is merely a matter of the correct position of the C of G, by
and large. Yes, it varies with the shape, but it doesn't vanish entirely ;-)


The reasons for fly by wire are many: Choose from a non exhaustive list..

- the plane is unstable, to gain manoeuvrability.
- the plane is marginally stable to allow most efficient low drag flight
- the plane driver (I hesitate to say pilot) is a klutz, and it helps
him not **** it up.

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...


A Sopwith Camel is unstable (at least in pitch) and certainly predates
electronic controls.

It also killed quite a few.

dennis@home wrote:


"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...


A Sopwith Camel is unstable (at least in pitch) and certainly predates
electronic controls.

It also killed quite a few.

It wasn't that unstable in pitch.

It had other problems.

Probably the worst of which was the guaranteed engine cut just as you
cleared the boundary fence and didn't adjust the mixture.

And a propensity to spin viciously, due to a relatively small tailplane.

which was a blessing or a curse, depending on whether you could get out
of it or not.

Plus the gyroscopic effects of a rotating engine, made it 'interesting'..

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Plus the gyroscopic effects of a rotating engine, made it 'interesting'..

Well having a rudder that acted like elevators was interesting.

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...


Why would a stealth aircraft require fly by wire?

Because it is shaped to be stealthy rather than to fly.

The C of G can and has been adjusted by adding ballast, made from spent
uranium to the front or back of an aircraft, providing that the aircraft
was designed conventionally as a stable one.

Its amount of stealth does not alter its ability to fly to any extent.
Stealth is built into the airframe by careful use of angles and
attention to gaps between panels. The idea of stealth is to reduce the
aircraft's radar profile down to the size of a small number of birds and
to reduce the heat that comes from the engines. To some extent, this can
be done by sucking in more air than the engine requires and bypassing it
to shroud the jet exhaust plume heat. There are other ways though.

That said, there are
devices that can look at the sky and tell you what flew through it earlier.

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...


Why would a stealth aircraft require fly by wire?

Because it is shaped to be stealthy rather than to fly.

The C of G can and has been adjusted by adding ballast, made from spent
uranium to the front or back of an aircraft, providing that the aircraft
was designed conventionally as a stable one.

Its amount of stealth does not alter its ability to fly to any extent.

Have you looked at a stealth fighter?
it is angled because it was the only way to do it with the CAD they had when
it was designed.
It is more like a flying brick than a plane.
The stealth bomber is a much more refined design and flys much better than
the fighter.
The raptor is yet another step forwards.

Stealth is built into the airframe by careful use of angles and
attention to gaps between panels. The idea of stealth is to reduce the
aircraft's radar profile down to the size of a small number of birds and
to reduce the heat that comes from the engines. To some extent, this can
be done by sucking in more air than the engine requires and bypassing it
to shroud the jet exhaust plume heat. There are other ways though.

That said, there are
devices that can look at the sky and tell you what flew through it
earlier.

The stealth fighters are easy to track if you have a large number of
transmitters and a few well placed receivers. The angles are all computed to
stop stuff being reflected back to the transmitter with the assumption the
receiver is co-located. The bombers have better absorbing surfaces but you
can track them by monitoring the changes in the EM field as they pass over
transmitters.

Dave

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...


Why would a stealth aircraft require fly by wire?

Because it is shaped to be stealthy rather than to fly.

The C of G can and has been adjusted by adding ballast, made from
spent uranium to the front or back of an aircraft, providing that the
aircraft was designed conventionally as a stable one.

Its amount of stealth does not alter its ability to fly to any extent.

Have you looked at a stealth fighter?

Looked at one? I spent nearly 20 years on them where I worked. We had a
radar building that had bay windows at the back that looked at a mobile
canvas hangar. Each bay window had a radar mounted in it. Aircraft were
only put in there at night when there was heavy cloud cover, so the
satellite's couldn't see the ground.

it is angled because it was the only way to do it with the CAD they had
when it was designed.

It was angled due to the work of the radar people, not CAD

It is more like a flying brick than a plane.

A brick would have been seen without a radar.

The stealth bomber is a much more refined design and flys much better
than the fighter.

If I remember rightly, wasn't it the B1 stealth bomber coming over from
the USA quite a few years ago? Friday, or Saturday?

I am not clued up on the US aircraft, but it was definitely a stealth
model, to take part in a flying display in the UK?

At the time, I was taking all the overtime I could to top up my pension
pot and I was working for the production side of things to see off and
marshal back a Tornado F3. I got him up and running and he came back and
did his fly past to announce he was back and I marshalled him back in.

He raised the canopy and I can't remember if it was the pilot, or
navigator that told me that the stealth bomber was coming in, as he had
seen it on his radar out in the Atlantic.

The raptor is yet another step forwards.

Don't know about that.

Stealth is built into the airframe by careful use of angles and
attention to gaps between panels. The idea of stealth is to reduce the
aircraft's radar profile down to the size of a small number of birds and
to reduce the heat that comes from the engines. To some extent, this
can be done by sucking in more air than the engine requires and
bypassing it to shroud the jet exhaust plume heat. There are other
ways though.

That said, there are
devices that can look at the sky and tell you what flew through it
earlier.

The stealth fighters are easy to track if you have a large number of
transmitters and a few well placed receivers. The angles are all
computed to stop stuff being reflected back to the transmitter with the
assumption the receiver is co-located. The bombers have better absorbing
surfaces but you can track them by monitoring the changes in the EM
field as they pass over transmitters.

Do you work in this field then?

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
news

Do you work in this field then?

Basic physics, really.

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:43:02 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
news

Do you work in this field then?

Basic physics, really.

Take that as a 'no' then?


--
The Wanderer

Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid;
humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant;
together they are powerful beyond imagination. ¡X Albert Einstein

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
news

Do you work in this field then?

Basic physics, really.
But as we all know, you dont know any.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
news

Do you work in this field then?

Basic physics, really.
But as we all know, you dont know any.

But people that do know physics, know that I know a lot more than you.

Do you want and try to argue about what you can do and what you can't do
when detecting stealth aircraft then?

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:43:02 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
news

Do you work in this field then?

Basic physics, really.

Take that as a 'no' then?

As I said its basic physics, do you want to argue that it doesn't work?

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
news

Do you work in this field then?

Basic physics, really.
But as we all know, you dont know any.

But people that do know physics, know that I know a lot more than you.


Bwahaha!

Do you want and try to argue about what you can do and what you can't do
when detecting stealth aircraft then?

Not especially, no.

BUT they are the shape they are for radar reasons. It dpoesn't affect
stability.

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:19:39 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:43:02 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
news

Do you work in this field then?

Basic physics, really.

Take that as a 'no' then?

As I said its basic physics, do you want to argue that it doesn't work?

Obfuscation. The question asked only requires a simple yes or no.

--
The Wanderer

The older I get the better I used to be!

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
news

Do you work in this field then?

Basic physics, really.
But as we all know, you dont know any.

But people that do know physics, know that I know a lot more than you.


Bwahaha!

Do you want and try to argue about what you can do and what you can't do
when detecting stealth aircraft then?

Not especially, no.

BUT they are the shape they are for radar reasons. It dpoesn't affect
stability.

Of course it affects their aerodynamics, that is bleeding obvious to anyone.
Their aerodynamics affects their stability and how hard they are to control,
that is also bleeding obvious.
So why do you think it doesn't?

The facts are as I stated..
they are that shape because the CAD programs and technologies they used to
make their radar characteristics could only cope with angled surfaces.
The use of those shapes makes the aerodynamics cr@p which is why they have
to use fly by wire with the computers controlling the planes surfaces.
Everybody else knows this is the case except you.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:43:02 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
news

Do you work in this field then?

Basic physics, really.

Take that as a 'no' then?

As I said its basic physics, do you want to argue that it doesn't work?

You seem to be missing his fairly obvious observation that its you, not
the physics, which is the problem

--
geoff

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:19:39 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:43:02 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
news

Do you work in this field then?

Basic physics, really.

Take that as a 'no' then?

As I said its basic physics, do you want to argue that it doesn't work?

Obfuscation. The question asked only requires a simple yes or no.

Well the answer is yes, I have a degree in physics from Imperial College as
it happens.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:19:39 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:43:02 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
news

Do you work in this field then?

Basic physics, really.

Take that as a 'no' then?

As I said its basic physics, do you want to argue that it doesn't work?

Obfuscation. The question asked only requires a simple yes or no.

Well the answer is yes, I have a degree in physics from Imperial College
as it happens.

Bull****.

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:24:43 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:19:39 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:43:02 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
news

Do you work in this field then?

Basic physics, really.

Take that as a 'no' then?

As I said its basic physics, do you want to argue that it doesn't work?

Obfuscation. The question asked only requires a simple yes or no.

Well the answer is yes, I have a degree in physics from Imperial College as
it happens.

You still haven't answered the question. Do you (or did you) work in this
field?


--
The Wanderer

Cunning linguists do it with words......

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...


You still haven't answered the question. Do you (or did you) work in this
field?

What has working in physics got to do with anything?
Either you understand that you can detect the changes or you don't.
The people that design these things know of the problems and use standoff
weapons when possible.
You don't think they would use cruise missiles if they could use cheap laser
guided bombs?

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:56:17 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...


You still haven't answered the question. Do you (or did you) work in this
field?

What has working in physics got to do with anything?
Either you understand that you can detect the changes or you don't.
The people that design these things know of the problems and use standoff
weapons when possible.
You don't think they would use cruise missiles if they could use cheap laser
guided bombs?

Oh, I wouldn't dream of lecturing others on matters on which I know very
little.

I merely note that you've been asked several times whether you have ever
worked in the aviation field and each time you've obfuscated and failed to
come up with a direct answer. That tells everyone exactly what they need to
know.


--
The Wanderer

The future isn't what it used to be.

On 15/02/2010 19:55, Andy Champ wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If it isn't at the center of lift, teh plane will fall over. Fly by
wire wire is equivalent to riding a unicycle. It can be done, but
requires constant input.

Fly by wire has nothing to do with how stable the plane is.
Airbus use fly by wire as did concord but the planes are not
particularly unstable.

You are confusing making an unstable plane (stealth, F22, etc.) and
needing fly by wire to fly it with what fly by wire is, its just a
control system designed for a particular purpose.


A Sopwith Camel is unstable (at least in pitch) and certainly predates
electronic controls.

That didn't seem to bother Biggles.

--
Tim

"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament"

Bill of Rights 1689

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:06:06 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:56:17 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...


You still haven't answered the question. Do you (or did you) work in
this field?

What has working in physics got to do with anything? Either you
understand that you can detect the changes or you don't. The people
that design these things know of the problems and use standoff weapons
when possible.
You don't think they would use cruise missiles if they could use cheap
laser guided bombs?

Oh, I wouldn't dream of lecturing others on matters on which I know very
little.

I merely note that you've been asked several times whether you have ever
worked in the aviation field and each time you've obfuscated and failed
to come up with a direct answer. That tells everyone exactly what they
need to know.

He does this wriggling trick (avoiding the question, then pretending he's
misunderstood and answering a different one) time and again. I doubt he's
qualified to dig a hole.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:56:17 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...


You still haven't answered the question. Do you (or did you) work in
this
field?

What has working in physics got to do with anything?
Either you understand that you can detect the changes or you don't.
The people that design these things know of the problems and use standoff
weapons when possible.
You don't think they would use cruise missiles if they could use cheap
laser
guided bombs?

Oh, I wouldn't dream of lecturing others on matters on which I know very
little.

But you will accuse others of not knowing anything even though you don't
have the knowledge to know if what they say is true?


I merely note that you've been asked several times whether you have ever
worked in the aviation field and each time you've obfuscated and failed to
come up with a direct answer. That tells everyone exactly what they need
to
know.

What it tells people is that you are looking for an excuse to try and
discredit someone because they don't agree with you.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:06:06 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:56:17 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...


You still haven't answered the question. Do you (or did you) work in
this field?

What has working in physics got to do with anything? Either you
understand that you can detect the changes or you don't. The people
that design these things know of the problems and use standoff weapons
when possible.
You don't think they would use cruise missiles if they could use cheap
laser guided bombs?

Oh, I wouldn't dream of lecturing others on matters on which I know very
little.

I merely note that you've been asked several times whether you have ever
worked in the aviation field and each time you've obfuscated and failed
to come up with a direct answer. That tells everyone exactly what they
need to know.

He does this wriggling trick (avoiding the question, then pretending he's
misunderstood and answering a different one) time and again. I doubt he's
qualified to dig a hole.

Just because you can't understand the answer doesn't mean I have not
answered it.

Take the aviation field question above.. I was talking about physics and he
asked if I had worked in this field, he could just as easily be asking me if
I worked on stealth, radar, aerodynamics, computer control systems, etc. all
of which were in the discussion but it appears he meant aviation even though
he didn't ask that.

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:24:43 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
Well the answer is yes, I have a degree in physics from Imperial College as
it happens.

is it your own and/or not printed out on Tesco Value paper?

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:17:29 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:06:06 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:56:17 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...


You still haven't answered the question. Do you (or did you) work in
this field?

What has working in physics got to do with anything? Either you
understand that you can detect the changes or you don't. The people
that design these things know of the problems and use standoff
weapons when possible.
You don't think they would use cruise missiles if they could use
cheap laser guided bombs?

Oh, I wouldn't dream of lecturing others on matters on which I know
very little.

I merely note that you've been asked several times whether you have
ever worked in the aviation field and each time you've obfuscated and
failed to come up with a direct answer. That tells everyone exactly
what they need to know.

He does this wriggling trick (avoiding the question, then pretending
he's misunderstood and answering a different one) time and again. I
doubt he's qualified to dig a hole.

Just because you can't understand the answer doesn't mean I have not
answered it.

Take the aviation field question above.. I was talking about physics and
he asked if I had worked in this field, he could just as easily be
asking me if I worked on stealth, radar, aerodynamics, computer control
systems, etc. all of which were in the discussion but it appears he
meant aviation even though he didn't ask that.

Well, now you have finally understood...have you worked the the aviation
field (in a technical capacity, not making the tea or sweeping the floor)?



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 18/02/2010 20:39, Jules wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:24:43 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
Well the answer is yes, I have a degree in physics from Imperial College as
it happens.

is it your own and/or not printed out on Tesco Value paper?

What makes you think he doesn't have a physics degree or that he didn't
get it at Imperial?

--
Tim

"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament"

Bill of Rights 1689

dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:06:06 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:56:17 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...


You still haven't answered the question. Do you (or did you) work in
this field?

What has working in physics got to do with anything? Either you
understand that you can detect the changes or you don't. The people
that design these things know of the problems and use standoff weapons
when possible.
You don't think they would use cruise missiles if they could use cheap
laser guided bombs?

Oh, I wouldn't dream of lecturing others on matters on which I know very
little.

I merely note that you've been asked several times whether you have ever
worked in the aviation field and each time you've obfuscated and failed
to come up with a direct answer. That tells everyone exactly what they
need to know.

He does this wriggling trick (avoiding the question, then pretending he's
misunderstood and answering a different one) time and again. I doubt he's
qualified to dig a hole.

Just because you can't understand the answer doesn't mean I have not
answered it.

Take the aviation field question above.. I was talking about physics and
he asked if I had worked in this field, he could just as easily be
asking me if I worked on stealth, radar, aerodynamics, computer control
systems, etc. all of which were in the discussion but it appears he
meant aviation even though he didn't ask that.

Denis said

The stealth fighters are easy to track if you have a large number of
transmitters and a few well placed receivers. The angles are all
computed to stop stuff being reflected back to the transmitter with the
assumption the receiver is co-located. The bombers have better absorbing
surfaces but you can track them by monitoring the changes in the EM
field as they pass over transmitters.

I said

Do you work in this field then?

I think this is clear enough.


Dave