Roll on the 20th June

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi Dirt
I have a question for you, do you use more fuel/gas going up or desending in your planes?
Take Care Dirt
Graham

[MrKai]

Kai,

Now you're starting to sound like me, from last week.. the 'me' that so annoyed you as to suggest that I just clam up and walk away until the 20th. Recall now, my emphatic comments about 'just a lever' - and absurd, made-up mathematics?

Wrong. Wrong.

The annoyance was in the delivery. You seem to not get this; your (previous) delivery was so much like Archer's, due to you being personally offended by him (with good reason) that you came of just as bad as he did because people weren't accepting your "facts" blindly either. When I say "facts" here, I mean facts (of course) but some folks amongst us seem to feel that certain facts, laws and axioms should have air quotes around them, so I play along...

Some people might find this aggravating, but I'm just as happy to read it. Yet I'm still a bit disappointed that you never stepped up and admitted to your fabrications regarding my posting history, here.. But truth be told, I never actually expected it; these interactions are, unfortunately, predictable.

Ah...there it is...the arrogant jack-assery

Look, if you want to take hyperbole as some sort of grand dig against you, fine man. I said "every other page" as a *figurative* thing...but you are so wound up in these "pitiful fools not being able to see a simple truth" (very Archer-esque talk...see?) that again, ya sort of ran with THAT part and glossed over the rest.

So to set the record straight and sooth ol' L-dawg's ego here a bit:

I misspoke. He does NOT appear literally every other page to insert some asshole dig at "archurians". He originally tried to explain things in a somewhat civil, but *very condescending and arrogant manner*...and when people didn't all switch sides due to his evidence, examples and decrees, became a right ass...just as his nemesis.

I hope this adds clarity for the 3 people that may have cared

Anyway, it sounds like people are on the right track with Archer's time-wasting silliness. Guess I'll slink back into the shadows, for a while.

-L

We'll see

[Mark69]

To Rusty,

I have a question for you:  Why is it that if power was advanced past a certain percentage, during takeoff, in a WWII fighter plane (eg.- corsair or mustang) that the plane would flip over?  Maybe because of the torque of the huge propeller?  I am a pilot, with thousands of flight hours, and the "torque effect" is a subject for beginning pilots. 

Here is a better question for you.  On a twin conventional aircraft (both engines propellers turn in the same direction), why is it that with the loss of the critical engine, below minimum controllable airspeed, that the aircraft will flip over in flight?  This is due to the lack of airflow over the control surfaces to overcome the torque effect of the other propeller's downward stroke producing torque, which is further from the center of gravity of the aircraft.  A non conventional twin aircraft (in which the engines propellers turn in opposite direction) doesnt have a critical engine (unless both props spin outward, which would be a bad design) and also has a lower speed at which the aircraft would flip over in the event an engine fails.

The rod that shifts further from the axle will produce more torque.

Mark

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi All
My question to Dirt was to show it takes more energy to go up then it takes to come down and this is why one side has to be heavier to push the opposite up.
With a car going up and down a hill, it takes alot of energy to get it up the hill but once up it flys down the other side.
Now we come to my point about no gain, like I said the car gains heaps comming down but what happens if you put another car on the other side of the hill, its the same size and weight and you have a rope joining the two cars.
Nothing happens because there balanced so there both just sitting there, if you put some stones in the boot of ever car what happens, that car drops pulling the other up but the question is does the car going down hill fly down now or just crawl down the hill?
Remember with the extra weight of the stones you get extra friction, is the speed the car is comming down now greater then the extra friction you gain?
Tell me looking at this where theres any gain.
Take Care all
Graham

[TryToBelieve]

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse by even mentioning this.. but after reading Archer's site updates... I see exactly where things go horribly wrong for him, and why he won't buy any Newtonian Math....

He thinks the idea of a "Perfectly Balanced" Newton lever (in the case of a stated 5:1) is 5:1 in length, AND 5:1 weight.  just read what he writes about Newtonian books:

"so if the text books say that a standard beam?s maximum power for 5 to 1 length and 5 to 1 weight is 5 to 1 lift they are wrong."

No wonder he hasn't shown the beam with no weight on it so we can verify that it balances... He would think we were joking or trying to show his beam was set up wrong, because his own understanding of Newton is that the beam would obviously fall to the side 5 times longer and 5 times heavier.  If this was the basis for a balanced lever according to Newton, he would be right - but we all know better.  5:1 lever would lift 5 to 1 oz or 5 to 1 tons....   maybe his first 5:1 unbalanced lever coincidentally got 5kilos on the short end and happened to balance and he thought this is what Newton meant.


While we're at it, here's another bit I want to mention... if he thinks the wall preventing you getting to 7 and then pushing you away from 7 at the SAME force will cancel out and then just the gravity will make the wheel work, he's forgetting something very important......   To get the gravitation effect he's looking for, he needs to lift the rod... by lifting the rod, you are now further away from the magnet that caused the wall on the way in, so it will have less effect pushing you out as you pass 7'oclock.


Here's a question I do have for those with magnets (the missing piece keeping me from playing with some of these ideas).....   if you have one magnet at exactly 1 and one at exactly 7, same distance from the rod with same polarity facing outward (in this case let's fix the rod so it doesn't slide)   Will the attraction at the top seeminlgy negate the repelling at the bottom?, and then after moving through the 1/7 position, will the opposite happen , where the tops attractive force preventing you from continuing away from 1 be negated by the bottoms propelling force to leave 7?  Curious if anyone's looked at this.