USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Just visiting the solar system. ..
http://m.space.com/28611-star-flew-...=10152649901146466&adbpl=fb&adbpr=17610706465
Just visiting the solar system. ..
http://m.space.com/28611-star-flew-...=10152649901146466&adbpl=fb&adbpr=17610706465
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
http://thecurmudgeonchef.blogspot.com/2014/01/kepler-syndrome.html
Kepler Syndrome sounds like a potentially really big deal!
http://thecurmudgeonchef.blogspot.com/2014/01/kepler-syndrome.html
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Is this one of your 50 shades?
Kepler Syndrome sounds like a potentially really big deal!
http://thecurmudgeonchef.blogspot.com/2014/01/kepler-syndrome.html
Is this one of your 50 shades?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
So did the South, so maybe it's you who misspelled it...
So did the South, so maybe it's you who misspelled it...
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Kepler defending the South. Now I've seen everything!So did the South, so maybe it's you who misspelled it...
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
For unis, commanders, and battle flag they had it over the Union.
There was a time when the South wasn't America's short bus. That time is long dead.
Kepler defending the South. Now I've seen everything!
For unis, commanders, and battle flag they had it over the Union.
There was a time when the South wasn't America's short bus. That time is long dead.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
They failed winning the war and have given us the current crap that we have now for government. The wrong side won.
They failed winning the war and have given us the current crap that we have now for government. The wrong side won.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Hey, if you're collecting signatures to petition the South to secede...
Hey, if you're collecting signatures to petition the South to secede...
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Sorry to have dropped out of the "conversation" for so long, life called.....
Anyway, some background on my personal experience on "scientific" astrology.
I was extremely skeptical to the point of unquestioning disbelief when I first heard about it. The only reason I listened at all was because I had great respect for my friend. He was Chinese, very shrewd, very hard-headed, quite tech smart. 25 years ago he had a server farm running in one room of his condo, hosting four websites.
What I am about to describe first sounded to me like phantasmagorical mumbo-jumbo which could not possibly be true....
He had a computer program based on millennia of Chinese astrological "research." To make it work "properly" you needed the exact hour and minute of birth, and the exact longitude and latitude of your birth place (or at least as close as you could get). He'd then enter that data, and the program would provide a chart that showed your natal sign (the sign of the Zodiac rising over the horizon at your moment of birth) and it placed the seven planets (no Pluto) in their location in the various houses of the Zodiac at the time you were born. He'd then "read" the chart and make various observations. His claim was that the planets and the houses of the Zodiac were like a giant cosmic "clock" and if you knew how to "tell time" you could understand the influences that would be active in your life at various points throughout it. Astrology did not "predict the future" nor was it causation, it merely indicated what kinds of things would be going on as a "coincident indicator." (I used the word "correlation" in two different ways and two different times earlier and thereby created unintended confusion, sorry about that). In other words, astrology might "correlate" what other forces were active in your life based on the location of the planets in the Zodiac at the time.
I was skeptical, and intrigued. I got birth times / locations for a number of people I knew, and gave them to my friend. He ran them through his computer, and then interpreted the charts. For example, one person at birth had Neptune (retrograde) in the 12th house. His interpretation: "this person will be interested in mystical things, probably take drugs, be into spirituality, that kind of thing." Spot on target. Another person, I forget the planet and house, he says, "this person will be secretive and private." Spot on target. on and on, he also discussed how the intersection of two people's charts would be interpreted for their relationship, one of his readings was "this relationship will be full of conflict and perhaps even violence." Spot on target again. he also read some charts for the present day (25 years ago was the present day at that time) and mentioned that some people would have money trouble, others would be flush with abundance, those kinds of things. It was eerie.
I still am not a "believer" now I am merely not a disbeliever.
The second time I used the word "correlation" it was to ask, how many incidents of these kinds of "predictions" from chart reading would be required?
Again, the problem here is using anecdotal evidence as a basis from which to engage in inductive reasoning. Not at all scientific, quite suspect, etc.
I've lost touch with my friend since then, it would be really interesting to consider how one might design a scientific study involving data collection, testable hypotheses, etc. How much "detail" would be needed? How do you measure "private and secretive" compared to "gregarious and outgoing"? How do you measure "mystical and into drugs" compared to "hard-headed and sober" or "driven and ambitious"? etc etc.
Sorry to have dropped out of the "conversation" for so long, life called.....
Anyway, some background on my personal experience on "scientific" astrology.
I was extremely skeptical to the point of unquestioning disbelief when I first heard about it. The only reason I listened at all was because I had great respect for my friend. He was Chinese, very shrewd, very hard-headed, quite tech smart. 25 years ago he had a server farm running in one room of his condo, hosting four websites.
What I am about to describe first sounded to me like phantasmagorical mumbo-jumbo which could not possibly be true....
He had a computer program based on millennia of Chinese astrological "research." To make it work "properly" you needed the exact hour and minute of birth, and the exact longitude and latitude of your birth place (or at least as close as you could get). He'd then enter that data, and the program would provide a chart that showed your natal sign (the sign of the Zodiac rising over the horizon at your moment of birth) and it placed the seven planets (no Pluto) in their location in the various houses of the Zodiac at the time you were born. He'd then "read" the chart and make various observations. His claim was that the planets and the houses of the Zodiac were like a giant cosmic "clock" and if you knew how to "tell time" you could understand the influences that would be active in your life at various points throughout it. Astrology did not "predict the future" nor was it causation, it merely indicated what kinds of things would be going on as a "coincident indicator." (I used the word "correlation" in two different ways and two different times earlier and thereby created unintended confusion, sorry about that). In other words, astrology might "correlate" what other forces were active in your life based on the location of the planets in the Zodiac at the time.
I was skeptical, and intrigued. I got birth times / locations for a number of people I knew, and gave them to my friend. He ran them through his computer, and then interpreted the charts. For example, one person at birth had Neptune (retrograde) in the 12th house. His interpretation: "this person will be interested in mystical things, probably take drugs, be into spirituality, that kind of thing." Spot on target. Another person, I forget the planet and house, he says, "this person will be secretive and private." Spot on target. on and on, he also discussed how the intersection of two people's charts would be interpreted for their relationship, one of his readings was "this relationship will be full of conflict and perhaps even violence." Spot on target again. he also read some charts for the present day (25 years ago was the present day at that time) and mentioned that some people would have money trouble, others would be flush with abundance, those kinds of things. It was eerie.
I still am not a "believer" now I am merely not a disbeliever.
The second time I used the word "correlation" it was to ask, how many incidents of these kinds of "predictions" from chart reading would be required?
Again, the problem here is using anecdotal evidence as a basis from which to engage in inductive reasoning. Not at all scientific, quite suspect, etc.
I've lost touch with my friend since then, it would be really interesting to consider how one might design a scientific study involving data collection, testable hypotheses, etc. How much "detail" would be needed? How do you measure "private and secretive" compared to "gregarious and outgoing"? How do you measure "mystical and into drugs" compared to "hard-headed and sober" or "driven and ambitious"? etc etc.
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
This is fun:
Tl;dr: I don't understand well understood psychology or parlor tricks.
This is fun:
Tl;dr: I don't understand well understood psychology or parlor tricks.
P
Priceless
Guest
At band camp?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Weapon porn doesn't typically do it for me, but hot holy hell, how is this even possible?
Weapon porn doesn't typically do it for me, but hot holy hell, how is this even possible?
aparch
Acetaminamerican
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
I'm not an aerospace engineer, but my guess would be there was still just enough wing for the fly-by-wire mode to keep the airplane going. Without that mode, the natural design of fighter jets aren't stable during flight even with the wings intact; they naturally want to spin out of control. Fly-by-wire keeps it aloft.
I'm not an aerospace engineer, but my guess would be there was still just enough wing for the fly-by-wire mode to keep the airplane going. Without that mode, the natural design of fighter jets aren't stable during flight even with the wings intact; they naturally want to spin out of control. Fly-by-wire keeps it aloft.
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
First, if the right wing "only" lost 6 feet, then by my estimate it really only lost about 12.5% of the total wing planform (due to the wing taper). It's fun to say that it lost "half a wing" but it's not accurate, and every square foot counts. If the aircraft was lightly loaded (i.e. no air-to-ground weapons, partial load of fuel), then the aircraft was probably at less than half of its max gross weight - clearly plenty of wing area left to keep the plane aloft.
The article makes one other common mistake: yes, the F-16 is slightly unstable, and yes, it has a "fly-by-wire" system to compensate for that, but in the case of the F-16 (and most other fly-by-wire aircraft*), the wires are just sending the control signals to the actuators, which still use hydraulic pressure from a redundant centralized hydraulic system to provide the "muscle" to move the control surfaces. Each of the two hydraulic systems is plumbed to each actuator, so if a single hydraulic system is lost, the other can still fly the jet. In this case, where the actuator for the aileron itself was ripped off the aircraft, there is no question that both hydraulic systems were severed, so a key feature which allowed the pilot to land are the "hydraulic fuses" in each system. As soon as a branch of the system breaks, the flowrate goes through the roof, the fuse detects that (mechanically), and automatically closes before all the fluid is lost - exactly analogous to a circuit breaker in an electrical system which shuts off the power to the circuit if the current goes too high.
*some small or low speed aircraft use electro-mechanical actuators (EMAs) to directly move the control surfaces using electric power, but nothing having remotely close to the extreme control surface loads of a fighter jet, and those aircraft are generally not fly-by-wire because they are not unstable. The F-35 (unstable) and the 787 (stable) come the closest to "power by wire," but in the case of the F-35, electric power goes out to each actuator where there is a small electric hydraulic pump which provides enough flow to move that one actuator's piston. The 787 is similar, but it uses a few "localized" electric hydraulic pumps which provide flow to multiple hydraulic actuators that are close by - the power is sent over the long distances via electricity, and then locally by hydraulic flow. The weight savings of replacing the long-distance hydraulic tubing with electric wiring more than makes up for the extra power conversion losses.
Are you asking, or just making conversation?
First, if the right wing "only" lost 6 feet, then by my estimate it really only lost about 12.5% of the total wing planform (due to the wing taper). It's fun to say that it lost "half a wing" but it's not accurate, and every square foot counts. If the aircraft was lightly loaded (i.e. no air-to-ground weapons, partial load of fuel), then the aircraft was probably at less than half of its max gross weight - clearly plenty of wing area left to keep the plane aloft.
The article makes one other common mistake: yes, the F-16 is slightly unstable, and yes, it has a "fly-by-wire" system to compensate for that, but in the case of the F-16 (and most other fly-by-wire aircraft*), the wires are just sending the control signals to the actuators, which still use hydraulic pressure from a redundant centralized hydraulic system to provide the "muscle" to move the control surfaces. Each of the two hydraulic systems is plumbed to each actuator, so if a single hydraulic system is lost, the other can still fly the jet. In this case, where the actuator for the aileron itself was ripped off the aircraft, there is no question that both hydraulic systems were severed, so a key feature which allowed the pilot to land are the "hydraulic fuses" in each system. As soon as a branch of the system breaks, the flowrate goes through the roof, the fuse detects that (mechanically), and automatically closes before all the fluid is lost - exactly analogous to a circuit breaker in an electrical system which shuts off the power to the circuit if the current goes too high.
*some small or low speed aircraft use electro-mechanical actuators (EMAs) to directly move the control surfaces using electric power, but nothing having remotely close to the extreme control surface loads of a fighter jet, and those aircraft are generally not fly-by-wire because they are not unstable. The F-35 (unstable) and the 787 (stable) come the closest to "power by wire," but in the case of the F-35, electric power goes out to each actuator where there is a small electric hydraulic pump which provides enough flow to move that one actuator's piston. The 787 is similar, but it uses a few "localized" electric hydraulic pumps which provide flow to multiple hydraulic actuators that are close by - the power is sent over the long distances via electricity, and then locally by hydraulic flow. The weight savings of replacing the long-distance hydraulic tubing with electric wiring more than makes up for the extra power conversion losses.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
- Status