>> ^TheFreak:

Isn't Wankel feeling rather smug right about now.


I thought the same thing, and Wikipedia greeted me with this:

"The rotor of the Wankel engine is easily mistaken for a Reuleaux triangle but its curved sides are somewhat flatter than those of a Reuleaux triangle and so it does not have constant width. "

Source (English translation) http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.der-wankelmotor.de%2FTechniklexikon%2Ftechniklexikon.html&sl=de&tl=en&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

I'm still partial to the reference though.

It was very interesting to me to see that they both talked about area footprint of wind/solar, but that their figures were *vastly* different. There are some fairly readily apparent things that contribute to that discrepancy, but not enough to account for it all in my opinion.

First, the pro-nuclear guy was presenting footprint for those resources supplying enough energy for the world's total need, whereas the anti-stance was talking only about powering transportation in the US.

Second, pro-nuclear included spacing and physical arrangement conditions into account for his footprint figures, while anti only considered the area of the base of the tower. I think both of those reporting methods have some useful data; as mentioned the spacing area around the tower bases can be used for agriculture or other production (although there is inconvenience costs associated with that), but there is also the physical reality that you can't cram all of those towers into a condensed area merely the size of their own footprint without the rotors colliding.

Those discrepancies in their arguments remind me of pro and anti ethanol talking points. I come from Kansas, and my family operates a farm that produces wheat and corn. Ten years ago, basically 100% of the corn production from my family's farm was sold to feedlots as food for cattle. About 5 years ago, an ethanol plant was built fairly close to our farmland, and so since then an average of roughly 50% has gone there instead (that figure changes a lot over time, but over a sum total of the past 5 years I figure 50% is ballpark). The remainder still goes to the beef industry. We determine who to sell corn to without any thought for pro/anti beef-ethanol advocacy, and just consider sale price minus self-delivery and other costs (shipping further costs more, etc.)

Anyway, the pro-ethanol people will butter you up with talk about "freeing ourselves from foreign oil", say that ethanol is better for the environment, etc. etc. The anti people write letters claiming that ethanol production is actually an energy-draining exercise -- that we use more energy to produce 1 unit of ethanol that we can gain from using that unit as fuel.

My uncle (basically the boss of the family farm) was interested in that claim so he decided to try to calculate it out, making best-guess estimates where necessary. What he came up with was that the anti-ethanol people were correct -- for the first 1-5 years of operation of an ethanol plant, and only if they include absolutely every expenditure of fuel even remotely associated with the production of the corn or other input AND the construction and operation of the plant itself. For example, including the diesel fuel consumption of every tractor, combine, irrigation wells/motors, etc. and suggesting that all of that consumption is entirely devoted to ethanol production; ie. that that fuel would not be used if the crop produced wasn't being turned into ethanol.

I didn't do the calculations myself, and I don't even really mean to suggest that I stand by them being correct. What I do think is relevant is that it shows that it is very very easy to present a fairly compelling argument for or against essentially anything by being selective about what data is included and how it is presented. This is particularly true for anything that involves large amounts of data and is fairly complex. So basically, while I *wish* that being honest, open, and thorough provided the best results in terms of winning a debate such as this, there is a lot to be said about the potential utility for massaging the data and preying on complexity and ignorance.

(Sorry for the long babble.)

I was waiting for the rotor to shoot off and cut a handful of people in half.

>> ^demon_ix:

Left, down, rotate 62 degrees, engage rotor?


Yeah, yeah, we all know how sex works.

Left, down, rotate 62 degrees, engage rotor?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I never really thought about it till now, but how does a chinook rotate without a tail rotor? It is all just differential rotor rotation? If so, does that mean you can turn around different axis' depending on which blade you use as the pivot?


"Tandem rotor designs achieve yaw by applying opposite left and right cyclic to each rotor, effectively pulling both ends of the helicopter in opposite directions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_rotor

I never really thought about it till now, but how does a chinook rotate without a tail rotor? It is all just differential rotor rotation? If so, does that mean you can turn around different axis' depending on which blade you use as the pivot?

The helicopter was hovering at about 25 feet above them when pyrotechnic explosions damaged it and caused it to crash on top of them, killing all three instantly.[3] Morrow and Le were both decapitated and mauled by the helicopter's top rotor blades, and Chen was crushed to death by the helicopter's skid.

It looks like it has an incredible amount of power and is very resistant to turbulance. I wonder what happens if it loses a rotor though... Perhaps the one on the opposite side would also shut down to maintain balance?

oh fuck it.
i'll throw in also:
1.grew up with an irrational fear of men and authority due to my father being extremely strict.yet he remains one of the most amazing people i have ever encountered.my life has been less since his passing.
2.in high school i was always the guy who protected the weaker from bullies and got in a lot of trouble doing but i dont regret any of that.
3.did so much blotter acid in high school that i am now strichnine(sp?) sensitive and now it just turns me into one big cramp.
4.did a tour in the navy and had the bright idea to get a free lift to spain upon discharge.couldnt find any work yet still stayed and spent all my money,had to panhandle in the airport to get the money to get back to the states.
5.while i am fantastic at starting projects i rarely finish them.dropped out of college three times and left seminary school after less then a month.though i did get my propulsion engineering degree it was from the navy,dont think that counts and i hate math.
6.while i am not the prettiest man i have always been able to date far above my league.dated 2 porn stars and quite a few you men here may have seen in your favorite nudey mag.
7.in my 20's i traveled around DJ'in for titty bars,and yes,i dated many of them also.
8.started writing poetry,bad poetry, when i was 7.i still think my poetry is bad.
9.was raised episcopalian but left the church at 14 when father ryan could not answer my questions in any sunbstansive way.
10.in my late 20's i married a beautiful abusive woman who would burn the bottoms of my feet so i would not fall asleep while she was screaming at me in a drunken blackout.i withstood this abuse for 3 years,which was constant,until i decided enough was enough and walked out leaving her everything.until this moment i had never realized just how passive aggressive and fearful i actually was.i actually give her credit for freeing me.
11.in my early 30's some friends introduced me to exstasy.while the drug was not something i indulged in for long i fell in love with the whole scene and traveled the raves for about 3 years and every now again i will participate but the things i saw and learned live with me still.
12,took a road trip with some friends from chicago(where i was living at the time)to san diego.after a drug induced crazy weekend they left me in a pool of my own vomit and went back to chicago.needless to say we are no longer friends,but san diego was nice,so i stayed awhile.
13.did a midnight move out when i lived in lauderdale,left everything.on the drive to tampa the rotor arm in my car snapped in alligator alley.i left it and signed the title over to a clerk at a chevron in naples because she said her car was dead.3 dollar part would have fixed my car.
14.hitch-hiked from providence to phillie with my best friend from childhood.think we were 16.the trip took us almost a week and we dropped between us 33 hits of acid.that was fun calling your dad to tell him you are in phillie and not to worry while tripping balls.
15.stole a car in my teens to save my friends girlfriend from her crazy ex boyfriend.we didnt even have our licenses yet.
16.music is everything to me.i am not a purist nor an elitist.if it speaks to me and my mood at the time i will love it.
17.i can be argumentative just for the sake of being contrary.i may even agree with your point but will interject a contrary view just to better understand the subject.
18.have no patience for egotistical lazy thinkers and respond accordingly.
19.over the years i have come to realize that the more i think i am understanding something the larger my ignorance seems to grow.this is frustrating as it is exciting.
20.while i do not subscribe to a religion.in fact i am vehemently anti-religious.i am a man of faith.closest definition would be gnostic-christian but i also subscribe to kabballah.
21.i consume far too much media and many times do not give a proper alottment of time to process all that information due to my adult a.d.d.
22.i have found teaching to be my hidden passion and hope for an opportunity soon to practice that passion once again.
23.i live by a code of :honesty,open-ness and respect.i am rarely offended because i never let anyone dictate how i should feel about myself.
24.i am most likely the most opinionated person you know but i always listen to what you have to say.
25.i dont regret anything that i have done,seen or experienced because i would not be who i am today.

i find the people on the sift fascinating.

For added safety you could make each section of the rotors independent of the rest, and give each of them their own motors. If you could find a way to link them on a differential shaft you would have a very safe redundant motor system.

You could put that rotor on a condom and have a Fan WANG.

Not very believable, he screamed a bit just before being struck. At the speed the rotor must be rotating to do that kind of damage, his brain wouldn't even had issued a scream impulse until about 500ms after being struck.

I mean, I'm sitting here stoned like a Medusa victim and caught that on the first pass.

As a [working] helicopter CFI-I I'm gonna say this is Dynamic Rollover. If you watch you can see it looks like she is landing on a raised platform (i.e. a cart). You can see it looks like the front porition of the left skid falls off the cart (you can see it fall, and she just sits there, as the collective is full down and lift is not greater than weight at that point) with a twisting motion. She then decides to try to lift back up and reposition.
It looks [to me] as if during the twisting motion, she gets the left skid stuck on something and now has the holy trinity of Dynamic Rollover (Pivot point, rolling moment, lift grater than weight).
The rate of roll is also consistent with Dynamic Rollover. If it was ground resonance, getting the air craft back into the air is the corrective action and the problem should have been solved, but she tried to lift up, and the helicopter rolled, pointing me to think it's dynamic rollover.
Also of note is the lack of vibration in the main rotor, and main rotor mast. Which should be seen in a ground resonance situation. (i.e. here and here).

Guy thrown out might have been killed by the rotors, very scary stuff.