from the Vimeo account: ""I am very very sorry for scaring my friends there that day :-/ I was just unconscious about 10sec from impact, nothing more, thanx god.

All was my fault absolutely! I wanted to learn spiral landings, and i remembered that once someone told me to do it first over water, many times to practice exits from spiral 50m above lake, then to lover exits slowly in a lot of attempts, till i do it right. I would be happy if i did that :-/ No lake nearby, so i decided to practice a little different on our local hill. Here in video, that was the second attempt to make landing from a sharp turn(like in moment when exiting from spiral and bleeding out the energy). I wanted to do it without spiral, just from rotation that will be similar to spiral exiting. First time there was a little thermal activity so i flu more ahead from the hill and started turn a little higher, just enough to make a one and a half turn, and it was perfect landing. Then in second attempt, no hot air to lift me, so everything started closer to ground, little wind(just enough to drift me back few meters), and...no thinking about road traffic at all!!! I sow that i will hit that little slope near road pretty fast, so exited turn to "jump over" the road. And than come moment when i start thinking about traffic, but it is too late now I don't know, i was an idiot with adrenalin in blood who thought that knows everything. Icaro syndrome call it...""

However, most thermal paper have BPAs so they are killing us all.

At the food coop where I work, we searched hard to find non-BPA paper. Which is expensive.


>> ^Fletch:

>> ^oritteropo:
Ah yes but I remember how expensive thermal paper is, how quickly it fades, and how much it sucks. I think I might give this product a miss.
This article disagrees, ironically from a company called POS Paper, so maybe they're projecting.

>> ^oritteropo:
Ah yes but I remember how expensive thermal paper is, how quickly it fades, and how much it sucks. I think I might give this product a miss.
This article disagrees, ironically from a company called POS Paper, so maybe they're projecting.

Ah yes but I remember how expensive thermal paper is, how quickly it fades, and how much it sucks. I think I might give this product a miss.

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.

Autoignition temperature
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The autoignition temperature or kindling point of a substance is the lowest temperature at which it will spontaneously ignite in a normal atmosphere without an external source of ignition, such as a flame or spark. This temperature is required to supply the activation energy needed for combustion. The temperature at which a chemical will ignite decreases as the pressure increases or oxygen concentration increases. It is usually applied to a combustible fuel mixture.

Autoignition temperatures of liquid chemicals are typically measured using a 500 mL flask placed in a temperature controlled oven in accordance with the procedure described in ASTM E659.[1]
Contents
[hide]

1 Autoignition equation
2 Autoignition point of selected substances
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

[edit] Autoignition equation

The time t_{ig}\, it takes for a material to reach its autoignition temperature T_{ig}\, when exposed to a heat flux q''\, is given by the following equation

t_{ig} = \left ( \frac{\pi}{4} \right ) \left (k \rho c \right )\left [ \frac{T_{ig}-T_{o}}{q''} \right]^2 [2]

where k = thermal conductivity (W/(m·K)), ρ = density (kg/m³), and c = specific heat capacity (J/(kg·K)) of the material of interest. T_{o}\, is the temperature, in kelvins, the material starts at (or the temperature of the bulk material), and q''\, is the heat flux (W/m²) incident to the material.

To be consistent in units the group \left[ \frac{T_{ig}-T_{o}}{q''} \right] should be squared.

>> ^deathcow:

I dont buy into the 1% more superior aliens having a hard time communicating with us. If chimps had a written language we'd have been talking for a long time now.


We are very similar to the genetic history of everything on this planet. Imagine you are born on a planet that was thrown from any an all nearby galaxies. Your planet didn't even a sun, you had no solar system, only your planet. Every form of life derived for the thermal activity of your planet. As a result, your complete narrative of communication would be different. Perhaps, even, being the very lack of competing life forms, you are the only one of your species. And thus, there is no need for language, or even, the thought of communication.

Even so, I think the point here wasn't that we COULD communicate, but would they want to. It's like talking to children, they are so dumb!

These people need to be institutionalized.

oh, and that seems fake as shit. That's a receipt paper. It's thermal paper, so it would be relatively easy to fake that.

efficiency in heating water is no more or less efficient then current natural gas and nuclear tech

Solar is inefficient in the sense that it costs more money to produce per watt of energy. It takes 25 years for a solar facility to break even. That's 25 years of citizens paying bigger power bills to subsidize a questionable technology.

you would have seen they has solved the day night cycle problem by storing the heat

Molten salt heat storage has existed at least since the early 1980s. I remember watching an episode of NOVA as a kid talking about this. The Spain plant is the first one in the world to use salt thermal storage tanks to run the plant for between 6 to 8 hours without sunlight.

Even in ideal locations, sunlight is interrupted by weather, cloud cover, and normal day/night cycles. These all reduce power generation capacity. Heat storage is not enough to make up the gap unless you live in close proximity to a few very specific geographic locations. Solar plant in "non ideal" locations require a fossil fuel backup for 75% of their total capacity. Essentially, the solar plant you see is just a coal-fired plant that burns 25% less coal.

Of course that fact that there are no fuel cost or waste by products mean that solar towers and the like will have no harmful impacts on the future like every other method of providing electricity out there.

Well, I'd debate your language a bit on this. There are fuel costs in the sense that you have to buy solar cells, and so forth. They require rare earth metals and other materials. There is waste also because you have to replace those things every few years. Modern nuclear plants are just fine, as are most modern US coal plants (if they would just let them be built).

Yeah, yeah a thermal scope. I just happen to have one on my frickin' KEY CHAIN!

>> ^breaddoughrising:

That's why god invented Thermal Scopes, you don't need to see' em!

That's why god invented Thermal Scopes, you don't need to see' em!

Gotta love that scene with all the reapers in the shot.

My worry about ME3 is that since ME2 distracted us with the collectors instead of the ACTUAL reaper threat, that they're going to have to pull a Deus ex Machina out of their butt to save us from the reapers in the end.

Yes, I know the collectors were pretty much created by the Reapers and they were making that new hybrid Reaper, but the whole thing, to me, seemed like such a distraction from the real threat.

ME2 was fun, but I agree with XXovercastXX and MarineGunrock, They took some of the best parts of ME1 and ripped them right out. the thermal clip system was dumb as hell. As MG said, the inventory needed fixing, not elimination.

I cant believe someone actually LIKED probe scanning. Yes driving the Mako around a lifeless planet was sometimes tedious, but it was also fun as hell sometimes too.

>> ^deathcow:

If you can focus that much with a single 2 meter paraboloid, wouldn't it be more efficient to heat water with power like that than to use solar panels?


That's the general idea behind thermal solar collection, though I think they molten salt instead of water since it won't boil at normal atmospheric pressures.

Archimedes of Syracuse was a Greek mathematician, physicist, engineer, inventor, and astronomer. The solar powered heat ray he is credited with inventing is thought by some to be a myth - but it may well have functioned based on the results of several experiments over the years.

Archimedes' heat ray was supposedly used in the Siege of Syracuse to focus sunlight onto approaching Roman ships, causing them to catch fire. Some have theorised that highly polished shields may have been used to focus the sunlight, much in the same way modern solar thermal farms use parabolic collectors.

Parabolic mirrors were described and studied by one of Archimedes' contemporaries, mathematician Diocles in his work "On Burning Mirrors", so their existence and possible application was known in the same time period as the Siege of Syracuse.

Over the ensuing centuries, various parties have attempted to prove or disprove the existence of Archimedes' heat ray using materials Archimedes would have had available to him at the time - and also with more modern materials.

A test in the 1970's by Greek scientist Ioannis Sakkas using 70 mirrors measuring 1.5 metres by 1 metre set fire to a mock wooden ship at a distance of around 50 metres. In 2005, an experiment by students at Massachusetts Institute of Technology using 127 small mirror tiles at a distance of 30 metres from a wooden target resulted in a fire after 10 minutes of perfect conditions. A repeat of this experiment for the Myth Busters television series found Archimedes' solar powered "death ray" was unlikely to have performed as reported and that other weaponry available at the time with the ability to set fire to ships, such as catapults, would have been far more effective and likely used.

More recently, the authors of Green Power Science have demonstrated the solar powered death ray was indeed possible. Using just 27 ordinary flat mirrors of various sizes, they were also able to set fire to a model wooden ship. Under ideal conditions, the mast of the model caught fire in under a minute. They believe Archimedes could have had access to many parabolic mirrors made of highly polished metal that would have provided a more focused reflection than flat glass mirrors; and also the necessary manpower for a substantial manual "solar tracking" system to keep sunlight focused on the ships for long enough to set them ablaze.

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=1006