Your video, High Winds In Shanghi Give Window Washers Quite A Ride, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/High-Winds-In-Shanghi-Give-Window-Washers-Quite-A-Ride

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

http://videosift.com/video/High-Winds-In-Shanghi-Give-Window-Washers-Quite-A-Ride

Your video, Driver Saves Semi-Truck from Tipping over due to High Winds, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I thought my point was clear. obviously not, so let me try to simplify. Landowners are being paid tax payers money (which we can ill afford) for turbines that are not paying for their investment, are not efficient, and have to be turned off in high winds. Not to mention that they are also ugly, noisy, and are harming wild life (birds and bats are being disorientated by the turbulence and flying into them.)
As for your rather rude comment on "BS thinking," regarding solar energy? Well, I wasn't aware we were discussing that.

Ok, so is the giant clear ball with it's mount, the specialized miniature solar cells able to handle focused sunlight, and the tracking device cheaper than normal PV cells with normal trackers? I can't imagine it is, so while neat, I fear this tech won't fly in normal applications. Maybe in designer homes and places with high wind, but high wind areas should probably be using windmills/turbines and flat mounted solar.

It's all about trajectory. You launch at an angle and force that compensates for drift and earth movement, etc. I bet they expected it to land anywhere within a few miles as it's a chute recovery system. Rockets don't fire on high-wind days because it throws trajectory off.

Yep, expert over here. This guy.>> ^Fletch:

>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Sagemind:
Actually, considering how high it went up, It's quite amazing how close to it's original launch site it landed.

I thought the same thing, if that would of hit someone...ouch.

Was it just luck or does it guide itself at all on the way down? It just seems SO improbable that it would come back down so damned close!
Do you actually think Carmack can design an engine nowadays that isn't on rails? Just because you can see all that landscape doesn't mean the rocket can actually go there. The only way back is through the same boring airspace it had already cleared.

>> ^Fletch:

A downvote is harsh? My god, are you people really this fragile? I wasn't questioning his parentage. I was disagreeing with his comment. He proposed a "critical flaw" in messenger's comment and there was none (that I could see). Simple as that. I sincerely doubt it ruined his day.
I'm sorry if you were offended, sirex. I'm sure you are a swell person.
Better?


Sorry, I guess I'm transfering from statements made by people who frequently get downvoted, more than any looking up in a FAQ -or asking anyone for that matter- sort of thing. 15 Upvotes gets you a power point, (Ya whoopdie, but they do allow you to do other, more concrete actions), and I was assuming a downvote made that harder to achieve.

From my years here I just really got the impression downvotes were mostly for slapping someone. Differences of opinion -or outright corrections- being done as a quote or @(namehere)'ing someone.

I laughed out loud on that.

In reply to this comment by Fletch:
A downvote is harsh? My god, are you people really this fragile? I wasn't questioning his parentage. I was disagreeing with his comment. He proposed a "critical flaw" in messenger's comment and there was none (that I could see). Simple as that. I sincerely doubt it ruined his day.

I'm sorry if you were offended, sirex. I'm sure you are a swell person.

Better?

I know you weren't the one crying about the downvote, and my smarmy reply was intended for Payback, not you.

As to messenger's original comment, we obviously read it/into it differently. I don't think he was suggesting what you thought he was. I took his comment in the context of the video (plane starting on the ground), which is the way I believe he meant it. I wasn't exactly sure what part of his comment you were being critical of, which may be the reason for my extremely basic explanation. It wasn't to be condescending.
In reply to this comment by sirex:
I guess critical flaw is perhaps over-egging it. But the original statement seems misleading to me. It suggests that without a propulsion system any aircraft is incapable of flight, which is obviously incorrect. Its likely just a case of clarification, but yes, once airborne the aircraft will lose forward momentum and be carried by the wind the same as any lump of rubbish in a hurricane, at that stage its likely its acting as a kite rather than anything aerodynamic.

(Also, i couldn't care less about comment votes. Its the internet.)

>> ^Fletch:

@sirex
Lift is dependent upon a plane's relative speed to the wind. Without brakes or chocks to hold the plane in place, the plane begins to travel with the wind as soon as it lifts off, lowering its relative speed. It loses lift and drops. A glider (which is what this plane effectively is, with its prop idle) would do the same thing, as its "propulsion" system is gravity. That close to the ground, there isn't anywhere near the altitude it would require to maintain lift.


That's all well and good, but downvoting his comment seems a bit harsh?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

They can take off without a teather, in exactly the same way as the plane in this video takes off. It's not at all safe, which is why it isnt done that way. You can even throw a glider directly off a cliff to gain the airspeed if you have a deathwish.

The way you need to look at it is that the thermals increase the height of the glider which increases its potential energy. The pilot converts this into forward momentum by pushing forwards on the stick, and in turn losing height. With fast enough winds (and we're talking 70-80mph, not great flying weather), a light aircraft will fly regardless of the updraft.

Also, its perfectly possible for aircraft to be flying either under propulsion or unaided and have a negative groundspeed (i.e, be going backwards). As long as the wind over the wing provides the needed lift, the aircraft *will* fly.

That said, landing with a negative ground speed is going to be interesting. However you can land with a tail wind as long as the overall air speed still provides the lift needed.


>> ^messenger:

I don't. Gliders cannot take off from the ground without a tether, and can only stay airborne by riding up thermals or other updrafts. This is a form of propulsion. Without updrafts and untethered, a glider will eventually fall to the ground.>> ^sirex:
>> ^messenger:
What we both didn't see in our heads is that once the plane leaves the ground, if the propulsion system isn't engaged, the plane will be pushed backwards, lose speed, and crash again.

I foresee a one word critical flaw in your argument.
Glider.

I don't. Gliders cannot take off from the ground without a tether, and can only stay airborne by riding up thermals or other updrafts. This is a form of propulsion. Without updrafts and untethered, a glider will eventually fall to the ground.>> ^sirex:

>> ^messenger:
What we both didn't see in our heads is that once the plane leaves the ground, if the propulsion system isn't engaged, the plane will be pushed backwards, lose speed, and crash again.

I foresee a one word critical flaw in your argument.
Glider.