>> ^ForgedReality:

Wheels need to be much much larger. This sucks because you can't go very fast on it under your own power. You need more leverage. Multiple gears would be nice also, once you upgrade the wheel size.


Just FYI, it does have gears, although it could probably use more. I'm sure there's some reasoning for the small wheels... handling, storage, etc. I didn't have a problem getting it up to a good speed.

I don't understand.. Have they NEVER busted a grow house before? ever?

Seriously, it looks like a weed not pot.
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/05/340x_horsemint.jpg

"The leaves are oblong-elliptical to lanceolate, 5–10 cm long and 1.5–3 cm broad, thinly to densely tomentose, green to greyish-green above and white below....
Scent: "A peppermint-scented aroma"

white on underside of leaves, their hands reeked of peppermint...

Who could ever be this stupid? Not one single cop said... wait a minute I don't think this is weed, like I've seen on t-shirts, bumberstickers, my fucking cop training.

>> ^robbersdog49:

Hmmm. Much as I'd like it to be true I'm still not convinced the extra energy needed to control the control shaft is going to make it better than the systems already in use.
I'd like to be surprised though.


There isn't extra energy... it isn't like the second motor needs to drive any power... The second motor only has to spin gears. The only work the second motor does is drive the elliptical gears which are in bearings and overcome friction of those teeth and moving the mass of the gears.

Imagine this scenario, a motorized skate board that is powered by a little engine. On top of that you have a deck with a worm tooth gear that moves the deck forward or backwards. So while you are moving forward at a constant speed the second motor moves the deck backwards (so you are moving slightly slower, like walking to the back of the bus while in motion).... It's like that but inside the gears so the second motor spinning will reverse the apparent motion. All the real power is still on the first motor.

The real problem seems to be you would need a mechanical neutral as your secondary motor would have to exactly match the drive rpm (or whatever ratio) in order to not move.. then you slow the secondary motor to increase the output shaft speed.

Another real benefit is that the drive motor can run at any rpm and you just match it with the secondary to stay still.. So you could go 5mph in idle or 5mph at top engine speed. The drive motor rpm - secondary motor rpm = motion and you can just pick whatever rpm delivers the torque you want.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The Wikipedia article on aerobraking I linked to mentions doing multiple passes for effective braking. So the the first pass is enough to put you into an elliptical orbit, and then subsequent passess can slowly pull you closer to the planet body. I'm sure there are upper speed limitations with this though.

I just watched 2010 a couple of days ago. Those crazy Soviets used giant inflatable metallic, heat-absorbing bags when aerobreaking around Jupiter.

>> ^jwray:
Aerobraking only works if you're not going vastly faster than the escape velocity of the planet that you're approaching. Or else you'll just get one pass through the upper atmosphere, not slow down enough, and keep going never to return. Mars' surface escape velocity is 5km/s, and mars is 35 million miles from earth on closest approach. Clearly you need some sort of retro rockets if you expect to get there in under a month. Mars has less than 1/100 of the atmospheric pressure of earth, and earth's atmosphere isn't enough to stop random asteroids from hitting it at 20km/sec

1. The Planets Move (2000 B.C. – 500 B.C.)
A thousand years of observations reveal that there are stars that move in the sky and follow patterns, showing that the Earth is part of a solar system of planets separate from the fixed stars.

2. The Earth Moves (1543)
Nicolaus Copernicus places the sun, not the Earth, at the center of the solar system.

3. Planetary Orbits Are Elliptical (1605 – 1609)
Johannes Kepler devises mathematical laws that successfully and accurately predict the motions of the planets in elliptical orbits.

4. Jupiter Has Moons (1609 – 1612)
Galileo Galilei discovers that Jupiter has moons like the Earth, proving that Copernicus, not Ptolemy, is right. Copernicus believes that Earth is not unique, but instead resembles the other planets, all of which orbit the sun.

5. Halley's Comet Has a Predictable Orbit (1705 – 1758)
Edmund Halley proves that comets orbit the sun like the planets and successfully predicts the return of Halley's Comet. He determines that comets seen in 1531 and 1607 are the same object following a 76-year orbit. Halley's prediction is proven in 1758 when the comet returns. Unfortunately, Halley had died in 1742, missing the momentous event.

6. The Milky Way Is a Gigantic Disk of Stars (1780 – 1834)
Telescope-maker William Herschel and his sister Carolyn map the entire sky and prove that our solar system resides in a gigantic disk of stars that bulges in the center called the Milky Way. Herschel's technique involves taking a sample count of stars in the field of view of his telescope. His final count shows more than 90,000 stars in 2,400 sample areas. Later studies confirm that our galaxy is disk-shaped, but find that the sun is not near the center and that the system is considerably larger than Herschel's estimation.

7. General Relativity (1915 – 1919)
Albert Einstein unveils his theory of general relativity in which he proposes that mass warps both time and space, therefore large masses can bend light. The theory is proven in 1919 by astronomers using a solar eclipse as a test.

8. The Universe Is Expanding (1924 – 1929)
Edwin Hubble determines the distance to many nearby galaxies and discovers that the farther they are from us, the faster they are flying away from us. His calculations prove that the universe is expanding.

9. The Center of the Milky Way Emits Radio Waves (1932)
Karl Jansky invents radio astronomy and discovers a strange radio-emitting object at the center of the Milky Way. Jansky was conducting experiments on radio wavelength interference for his employer, Bell Telephone Laboratories, when he detected three groups of static; local thunderstorms, distant thunderstorms and a steady hiss-type static. Jansky determines that the static is coming from an unknown source at the center of the Milky Way by its position in the sky.

10. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (1964)
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discover cosmic microwave background radiation, which they suspect is the afterglow of the big bang. Their measurements, combined with Edwin Hubble's earlier finding that the galaxies are rushing away, make a strong case for the big bang theory of the birth of the universe.

11. Gamma-Ray Bursts (1969 – 1997)
The two-decade-long mystery of gamma-ray bursts is solved by a host of sophisticated ground-based and orbiting telescopes. Gamma-ray bursts are short-lived bursts of gamma-ray photons, which are the most energetic form of light and are associated with nuclear blasts. At least some of the bursts have now been linked with distant supernovae — explosions marking the deaths of especially massive stars.

12. Planets Around Other Stars (1995 – 2004)
Astronomers find a host of extrasolar planets as a result of improved telescope technology and prove that other solar systems exist, although none as yet resembles our own. Astronomers are able to detect extrasolar planets by measuring gravitational influences on stars.

13. The Universe Is Accelerating (1998 – 2000)
Unexpectedly, astronomers find that instead of slowing down due to the pull of gravity, the expansion of the universe at great distances is accelerating. If these observations are correct and the trend continues, it will result in the inability to see other galaxies. A new theory of the end of the universe based on this finding has been called the "big rip."

The slant to gear teeth made even the normal gears weird to look at, then combining that with the elliptical gears...

could you please explain or tell me where I can see explained, why it would not just go into an elliptical orbit instead? Keep in mind you are in a space suit outside the spacestation and can only throw about 30 miles per hour or so. What about if you throw an object straight "up" while in orbit? My guess is the result would be the same.

In reply to this comment by rgroom1:
When an object is in orbit, it is already in free-fall, but the centripetal force going up is equaled by the force of gravity going down. If you chuck something down, it will continue that way until it hits the ground.

In reply to this comment by GabaJ:
>> ^bamdrew:
some day I'd like to be hurtling through the vacuum of space and just full-on chuck something down at Earth.


I have a question for the physicists - what would happen to an object thrown perpendicular to your orbit down toward earth? Disregard atmospheric drag. After one orbit, would that object come back up towards you as fast as you chucked it?

In reply to this comment by rychan:
>> ^GabaJ:
I have a question for the physicists - what would happen to an object thrown perpendicular to your orbit down toward earth? Disregard atmospheric drag. After one orbit, would that object come back up towards you as fast as you chucked it?


Good question.

Assumption: you don't throw it far enough towards Earth for atmospheric drag to matter, and you are more massive than the object.

my answer: I don't think so, and it's not a simple matter. Lets say you were in a perfectly circular orbit. You throw the object down and now it's in an eccentric orbit (and so are you, for that matter). It no longer has the same orbital period as you, because it has a longer semi-major axis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-major_axis) which means it has a slower orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_period)

I could be wrong, though.

Thank you for your thoughts. After additional consideration this is what I think would happen: The fastest you could throw an object while in a space suit and anchored to the space station is maybe 20 or 30 miles per hour. As you say, this would put it in an elliptical orbit. If the station orbits once every 90 minutes in a circular orbit, then the object would go straight down and a little ahead as it picks up speed, but only for about 20 some minutes and 10, 15 miles. (this is the part I can't calculate) After half an orbit it would come back up and miss you because no one could throw so accuaretly that they can hit something 30 miles away. Then after one full orbit, it would come back from "above". and so on...

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Hi, you owe yourself an upvote here.


Thanks! Just upvoted, I've been lurking on VS for a while but still don't know all of the details about being a registered member. I'll have to read more of the faqs when I get the time.

Hi, you owe yourself an upvote here.

As far as global warming, who was burning fossil fuels 100,000 years ago to cause that warming?

How about 18,000 years ago at the end of the Pleistocene? Lots of fossil fuel burning going on then?

Climate is a described by coupled sets of non-linear relationships whose actual variables haven't even been convincingly identified.

Those pointing to computer models are either frauds or incompetent; as the models are worthless. Every single line of that code needs to be held up to the light of day; the fudge factors, approximated physics, poor math, and then the whole sections where they have no idea but just wing it.

Global warming is just a tool to empower bureaucrats and unaccountable international organizations who want to control you. With communism and socialism disreputable, it's the new vehicle.

Known causes of climate change:

(1) Astronomical Causes

11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )


(2) Atmospheric Causes

Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps


(3) Tectonic Causes

Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.

Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.

Just a great song.


From Wiki:

Cortez the Killer is a song by Neil Young from his 1975 album, Zuma. It was recorded with Young's band Crazy Horse and ranked #321 on Rolling Stone 's list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.

The song is about Hernán Cortés, a conquistador who conquered Mexico for Spain in the 1500s. The song also makes reference to the Aztec ruler Moctezuma II and other events that occurred in the Spanish conquest of the New World.

The music is typical of the Zuma album — simple, big chords and not much extra. The song repeats the chords Em7, D and Am7 while Young adds his signature solo riffs throughout. It is played in Young's favoured "double dropped D", or "D modal" tuning (DADGBD) — standard guitar tuning with top and bottom strings tuned down a whole tone.

Only after several minutes of this does the lyric start. First it pictures Cortés and his galleons about to arrive, then jumps to the Aztecs, depicting their civilization in somewhat idealized fashion even though explicitly acknowledging, before and after some guitar work, both human sacrifice and the immense human toll of building their pyramids. Instead of describing what happened when Cortez appeared, the lyric in the last verse suddenly jumps centuries forward to the present day, with elliptical references to a romantic relationship gone bad. Finally after another spell of guitar, Young simply mutters, "Cortez ... what a killer."

Young has stated in concert that he wrote the song while studying history in high school. In Jimmy McDonough's biography of Young, entitled Shakey, the author asked Neil if his songs were autobiographical. Young replied, "...What the fuck am I doing writing about Aztecs in 'Cortez the Killer' like I was there, wandering around? 'Cause I only read about it in a few books. A lotta shit I just made up because it came to me." Nevertheless, the song was banned in Spain, according to Young's notes for the album Decade.

The simple chord structure lends itself to long jams, and has been covered as such a jam song by many artists. The song has been covered live by the Dave Matthews Band, most notably a performance with Warren Haynes at their concert in Central Park in 2003. The song was also covered by Built to Spill on their 2000 album Live, by The Church on A Box of Birds (1999), and by The Drones. Gov't Mule covered the song on their 1998 album Live ... With A Little Help From Our Friends.

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