Driver to drive?

[Jon Slaughter]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:zoSdnauhefVzQVXVnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Alaska Rocks wrote:

On Sep 10, 8:23 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Fan wrote:

On Sep 10, 6:54 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Fan wrote:

It all depends what Palin has on when she forces you to pray

http://www.hollywood-newsroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/sarah-pa...

That is a crude photshop of Sarah's head on another body.

http://www.hollywood-newsroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/sarah-pa...
http://www.hollywood-newsroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/sarah-pa...

It looks authentic to me. Prove that it is not. How about the second
photo? Do you claim that it is a fake also?

I was talking about the second photo You cut off 'lin-sexy-gun.jpg'
and replaced it with ... above.

I got these photos off the internet, the same as you got yours. Let us
assume, for a minute that you are right and these are not Palin's
photos. That leaves her with nothing. Just a gun-nut religious
extremist, no different from the Islamic nuts who shoots wolves from
helicopters, spits on women's issues, lies about her past and tells us
about family values while parading the joker who got her 17 year old
daughter pregnant. You had better hope that Palin is hot because
without that she is just trailer trash.


That's funny. I don't remember seeing any trailers when I lived in
Alaska, and the Governor's mansion certainly isn't one. Tell me, are you
jealous that you aren't in politics, or a woman?

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLD&resnum=0&q=alaska+governor's+mansion&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

www.theplanet.com

Do you really expect the moron to come around? You completely shoot the shit
out of his argument and he ignores it. Instead of "Hey, I was wrong... maybe
I'm too gullible" he just changes the subject and tries to pretend he wasn't
wrong.

Of course this is a standard liberal method because there is no
accountability. (the right does it too but not to the extreme)

 

[Den]

"The Real Andy" <therealandy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1fphc4teaqces8sb93rl6nu74rhsgvqd1l@4ax.com...

Dont know about anyone else, but I found it quite dissapointing.
Perhaps round 2 in 23 days (correct me if I am wrong) will be much
more impressive...

Live webcams below are impressive:

http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

 

[Den]

"Martin Griffith" <mart_in_medina@yah00.es> wrote in message
news:3fuhc4ta0ke6tag9ncgvcs07dekqll53jp@4ax.com...

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:23:22 +0800, in sci.electronics.design "Den"
Invalid@someemail.com> wrote:


"The Real Andy" <therealandy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1fphc4teaqces8sb93rl6nu74rhsgvqd1l@4ax.com...
Dont know about anyone else, but I found it quite dissapointing.
Perhaps round 2 in 23 days (correct me if I am wrong) will be much
more impressive...




Live webcams below are impressive:

http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

some more stuff here
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080905/full/news.2008.1085.html
such as
0.00000000047 grams = total mass of protons circulating in the LHC
at any time.

362 megajoules = collective energy of LHC's protons at top speed.

martin

low mass & big joules, lets you appreciate how fast they're going.

 

[Mike Monett]

Martin Griffith <mart_in_medina@yah00.es> wrote:

some more stuff here:

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080905/full/news.2008.1085.html

such as 0.00000000047 grams = total mass of protons circulating in
the LHC at any time.

362 megajoules = collective energy of LHC's protons at top speed.

martin

Dumping the beam is a special problem in itself. The proton beam can
melt a half ton of copper:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug08/6558

In experiments, researchers found that an 86-microsecond exposure of
the beam would bore a hole 40 meters into a block of copper:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug08/6558/2

Mike Monett

 

[TheM]

"Martin Griffith" <mart_in_medina@yah00.es> wrote in message news:3fuhc4ta0ke6tag9ncgvcs07dekqll53jp@4ax.com...

some more stuff here
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080905/full/news.2008.1085.html
such as
0.00000000047 grams = total mass of protons circulating in the LHC
at any time.

362 megajoules = collective energy of LHC's protons at top speed.

martin

This is interesting:

US$4.1 billion = cost of building the LHC.
US$4.5 billion = cost of the USS Ronald Regan.

Now which of these two do you consider worse waste of money?

I'll take colider anytime.

M

 

[TheM]

"Mike Monett" <None@here.adr> wrote in message > http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug08/6558

In experiments, researchers found that an 86-microsecond exposure of
the beam would bore a hole 40 meters into a block of copper:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug08/6558/2

Not there's your practical application, tunnel digging.
A few seconds and you've got a perfectly straight intercontinental tunnel,
never mind short ones like the british channel, that's what, hundred
miliseconds? Just remember to turn it off on time.

M

 

[TheM]

"Martin Griffith" <mart_in_medina@yah00.es> wrote in message news:k12ic4psmfknoc0865ci20goqochseg4fd@4ax.com...

Absolutely incredible.

An IEEE page you don't have to pay for.

martin

Probably due to low quality of the article. Read below:

"Next, the 0.2-millimeter proton beam passes through 10 dilution
magnets, which cause the protons to fan out until the beam has
thickened to a lower-intensity diameter of 1.5 mm.
Now fattened to the width of a human hair, the ..."

1.5mm? Maybe on yeti, deffinitely not human.
M

 

[JohnF]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highnotlandthistechnologypart.com> wrote:

JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
JohnF wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@pergamos.net> wrote:
mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote:
"The Large Hadron Collider is a symptom of America's decline in
particle physics and, some fear, in science overall"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157514
Ah well... best wishes to the Europeans

I can't recall a single technologically useful result it's
generated since about Fermi's day
The argument seems to be that we have to keep dumping
our limited physical science budgets into accelerators
to avoid falling behind in a field that doesn't produce anything
useful

Before radios, telegraphs, electric motors, etc, etc, Queen Victoria
once asked British physicist Michael Faraday of what use his
studies in electricity and magnetism were. He famously replied,
"Madam, of what use is a baby?"

That's an old chestnut, and proves nothing. Particle physics
has had big bucks poured into it for what, 60 years now? (Not counting
the Manhattan Project--nuclear has produced useful things.) When the
Faraday effect was 60 years old, it was powering half the world.
Somebody pointed out long ago that the further the energy scale gets
from kT, the fewer the useful results.

Well, if you're looking for practical results...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,419404,00.html
Coincidentally, the LHC is scheduled to go online in just
a few hours, at 3:30am EDT Wednesday, 9/10/08, possibly
creating black holes that will destroy the Earth...
"Someone will spot a light ray coming out of the Indian
Ocean during the night and no one will be able to explain it,"
retired Professor Otto Roessler told London's Mail.
"Very soon the whole planet will be eaten in a magnificent
scenario if you could watch it from the moon. A Biblical
Armageddon. Even cloud and fire will form, as it says in
the Bible."
And we even have...
A pair of Russian scientists even think the LHC will be
the world's first time machine, and that we should expect
visitors from the future to arrive soon after it goes into
operation.
And, hey, don't tell me these guys are kooks until
you double-check what newsgroup you're posting to.

A hot cosmic ray can have the kinetic energy of a well-pitched
baseball, far more than the LHC can manage. Certainly in the age of
the Earth two such cosmic rays have collided nearby. We're still here.

Well, what confused me about the two quotes was that if
(1) the LHC destroys the Earth, then (2) how can there
then be any visitors from the future?
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

 

In sci.physics JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:35:04 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:


The pilots I have spoken to are not saying that about airplanes. They
are speaking for both themselves as well as the other people who might
want something different from what they have.

It just keeps going right over the top of your head, doesn't it?

They are trying to get you to understand the realities of regulation,
science, engineering, and economics.

It doesn't matter if I or any other pilot likes the idea of a 4 place
GA aircraft with fly-by-wire controls.

The simple reality is that such an airplane would be heavier, more
complex to maintain, more expensive to build, purchase and insure,
and have no advantage over the same airplane with cable and pully
controls.

I have seen this many times from you, but the bottom line is that i am
going to cease buying off on heavier. Perhaps in a couple decades
digital fly by fiber (wire) will confer configurability and control
advantages affordable at the GA level of perhaps $150,000 normalized
to 2001. But i ain't betting on it.

Yeah, heavier.

You can't just bolt a motor shaft to a control surface.

You still have to have all the same cable and pulley stuff with
fly-by-wire, it just stops at wherever the motors are mounted
instead of going all the way to the yoke and peddles.

So you've replaced some number of feet of fairly light stainless
cable with three motors, their mounting hardware, the wiring to the
motors, the control system with it's wiring, the sensors on the
yoke and peddles and associated wiring, plus if you have any sense
at all, there is the extra backup power so the controls always work.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Brad Darnell]

Good post! Not mentioned though is not taking part in any religion at all.
Which is my choice.
"kol_isha" <kol_isha@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:107831df-8733-4c0e-91a2-eac3f205fa92@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 10, 12:01 pm,

Curious, why would you fear a prayer?

I fear a government that can force you at gunpoint to say _their_ prayer.

Thanks,
Rich

Here's the bottom line. There is a reason for separation of church
and state, and it has to do with exactly that... i.e. not forcing
other people to participate in religious rituals in which they don't
believe. Easy to say "well, it's just a little prayer" if it's YOUR
prayer. But what about trying, for once, to put yourself into the
shoes of another and figuring out how it might feel from THEIR
perspective.

I can STILL remember how it felt, as a small child (before the laws
changed), when my teacher would pick up the Bible (the new testament)
and read a passage each day before we recited the Lord's Prayer (which
is, of course, a Christian prayer). Often the word "Jesus" or
"Christ" was included. I was only 5 or 6, but I would squirm and feel
so incredibly uncomfortable, and I still remember that awful feeling
of being stuck and not knowing what to do. I understood on some level
that this was wrong, that it wasn't what my family believed in, that I
was not supposed to ever bow my head in the name of Jesus, that the
"new testament" had NOTHING to do with my religion. But I also knew
that my parents had taught me to respect authority and that you were
supposed to do what the teacher said.

Do you even have a clue what that might feel like? What, in fact, it
STILL feels like. As a grown adult, I become 5 or 6 years old again
when I'm in that situation. There is NO place for religion in
government. I have just as much right as anybody else to feel
comfortable at a public event. When a government chooses to push
something like that down unwilling throats, what they are basically
saying is that I don't count because I don't believe the same things.
But I am a citizen, too, and I pay my taxes just like anyone else.
Talk about disenfranchisement...

I often do an exercise in my clinical practice to help people gain a
different perspective. When a 240 pound guy who is married to a 120
pound woman doesn't understand why she might feel intimidated when he
gets angry and punches his fist through the wall, or pushes her, or
stands over her and "orders" her to do something even though he
"didn't mean to be absuive," I suggest that he go home and try to put
on her t-shirt. He usually comes back amazed that he couldn't even
get his wrist through the armhole. "Wow, it never occurred to me that
she was that much smaller than me." Good. Now he understands how the
size differential alone might be a little intimidating.

Now try this. Imagine that our government leaders WERE Muslim, and
that you were sitting at a government-sponsored event at which they
asked everybody to get on their knees and say a prayer to Allah. Do
you think you might be a bit uncomfortable when everybody around you
got down on their knees?

It always helps to put yourself in another's shoes and remember that
"I am you and you are me." Prayer of any type does NOT belong in a
government-sponsored event.

Best,

Arlene

 

In sci.physics JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 9, 5:25?pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
You are avoiding the question.

Substitute any GA class airplane you like, whether it exists or not.

Name some things that a fly-by-wire airplane could legally do that the
same airplane could not do with conventional cable and pulley systems.

Minimize effects of turbulence against aircraft bu utilizing
sophisticated digital filters against stochastic modeling of the
turbulence.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Seek out information on the current size, weight, electrical and
cooling requirements of computers that can do that task in real time
(as you are talking about here) today. They are probably rather
larger than a Cessna 172, are heavier that its maximum load (the
computer itself even heavier than gross maximum vehicle weight),
require more kW that the aircraft can supply, and need several tons of
AC equipment beyond that.

There are two effects of turbulance.

The airplane orientation is changed, or in simple terms, it gets
pointed it a direction other than what it should be.

A simple 2-axis autopilot, which have been around for about a half
century takes care of that; this part is trivial.

The airplane altitude is changed by vertical air movement, which
is what turbulance mostly is.

While a 3-axis autopilot will minimize altitude change, the simple
fact is that most altitude changing turbulence has a vertical
velocity that exceeds the climb capability of GA aircraft and
would exceed the stress limits in a dive.

The reality is that all you can do about turbulence once in it is to
keep the airplane straight and level while maintaining airspeed and
ride out the ups and downs.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[MK]

RMMGA: a recreational newsgroup
mostly devoted to the acoustic guitar

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"mpm" <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1f0c01a9-1b03-49d3-bb2b-70ba02d982c0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Here's your chance to show your creativity...

Obviously, lipstick and pigs have been in the news a lot lately (US
Elections).
So I thought, what better way to cash in (on eBay) than with our own
S.E.D. line of political cosmetics!

The Challenge:
Come up with a "moose-killer" name for Palin's lipstick shade.
I'll get you started with some examples (already taken) from the
Loreal-Paris web site:

Cherry Freeze
Mango Tango
Island Punch
Sugar Plum
Glistening Berry (all lame, but then we get to...)

Fired Up!
Tainted
Naked Ambition
Zealous
Pretentious
Turbulent
Indestructible
Pouty Pink
Precarious (humm, seems women might already have more to fear than
pork?)

Anyway, that's your starter set.
Good luck.!!

-mpm

I think all your ranting about palin is just making you mad. Your starting
to get heterosexual tendencies for a women!! a republican for that matter!!!
Oh the insanity!!

 

[RST Engineering (jw)]

Moose blood.

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


"mpm" <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1f0c01a9-1b03-49d3-bb2b-70ba02d982c0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Here's your chance to show your creativity...

Obviously, lipstick and pigs have been in the news a lot lately (US
Elections).

 

In sci.physics Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:

On 9/11/08 8:35 AM, in article 2vpnp5-3bq.ln1@mail.specsol.com,
"jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com" <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:

In sci.physics JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 9, 5:25?pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
You are avoiding the question.

Substitute any GA class airplane you like, whether it exists or not.

Name some things that a fly-by-wire airplane could legally do that the
same airplane could not do with conventional cable and pulley systems.

Minimize effects of turbulence against aircraft bu utilizing
sophisticated digital filters against stochastic modeling of the
turbulence.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Seek out information on the current size, weight, electrical and
cooling requirements of computers that can do that task in real time
(as you are talking about here) today. They are probably rather
larger than a Cessna 172, are heavier that its maximum load (the
computer itself even heavier than gross maximum vehicle weight),
require more kW that the aircraft can supply, and need several tons of
AC equipment beyond that.

There are two effects of turbulance.

The airplane orientation is changed, or in simple terms, it gets
pointed it a direction other than what it should be.

A simple 2-axis autopilot, which have been around for about a half
century takes care of that; this part is trivial.

The airplane altitude is changed by vertical air movement, which
is what turbulance mostly is.

While a 3-axis autopilot will minimize altitude change, the simple
fact is that most altitude changing turbulence has a vertical
velocity that exceeds the climb capability of GA aircraft and
would exceed the stress limits in a dive.

The reality is that all you can do about turbulence once in it is to
keep the airplane straight and level while maintaining airspeed and
ride out the ups and downs.


That's "while trying to maintain minimum controllable airspeed." During the
bad stuff, you're frequently in and out of stalls and you're just focused on
keeping the plane flying. Keeping it straight and level becomes hopeless.
Sometimes it's almost even not fun anymore

Agreed.

Personally, I fly for fun and do not find anything much past light chop to
be any fun at all and do my planning to avoid such.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 11, 12:29?pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
And don't forget that as the control surfaces are motor-moved (however
little) the pressure must be fed back to the pedals and yolk, requiring yet
more hardware. ?Beginning students may not yet understand this, but most
flying is done by applying pressure, more than it is forcing movement.- Hide quoted text -

That is only true if there are pedals and a yoke.

Wrong, presure feedback is an important part of flying and something
you will learn if you ever start actually doing it.

It seems that it would be technically feasible to create a different
kind of control system where the pedals are eliminated and the yoke is
place with something that uses more plastic+wire+actuator than steel/
cables/pulley?

Yeah, like what?

A human being has two hands and two feet.

One hand needs to be free for "other" stuff.

That leaves one hand and two feet to control the airplane.

What would you have other than a yoke or stick and pedals to provide
3 axis control?

Now you could allways cross couple the rudder and ailerons like in
an Ercoupe, and eliminate the rudder pedals but now you lost the ability
to slip, which if you ever start really flying, you will find is an
important ability to have and why the later Ercoupes had a rudder retrofit.

In a real fly-by-wire airplane the yoke/stick and pedals are usually
connected by a cable and pulley system to the sensor and feedback
force motor.

On some the system is hydraulic which eliminates some, but not all
of the cables required.

Again, you can't just bolt the stick/yoke to the motor shaft.

Why don't you put your puerile fantasies on hold until after you've
done a few crosswind landings in gusts and have learned what sort
of control inputs it takes to keep an airplane lined up on final?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Brad Darnell]

In my area a child cant even participate in elementary sports programs
because the churchs have taken them over. Its called the Upward program in
which praying before the game and at halftime is required. They asked me to
ref, in which leading public prayer is required, I politely said no thanks.
Of course they do not know my views on religion. My child uncomfortable sits
thru this form of brainwashing in order to be able to play in the local
sports leagues. If you do not use the UPward league then the child is so far
behind by the middle school years that they arent considered and they are
not known by the parents(coachs etc). This is just an example of religion
going were it doesnt belong.
"hans" <anybutbush@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48073d75-b2c2-42f3-a7c0-51e6bea25e42@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 9:09 am, kol_isha <kol_i...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 10, 12:01 pm,

Curious, why would you fear a prayer?



I fear a government that can force you at gunpoint to say _their_
prayer.

Thanks,
Rich

Here's the bottom line. There is a reason for separation of church
and state, and it has to do with exactly that... i.e. not forcing
other people to participate in religious rituals in which they don't
believe. Easy to say "well, it's just a little prayer" if it's YOUR
prayer. But what about trying, for once, to put yourself into the
shoes of another and figuring out how it might feel from THEIR
perspective.

I can STILL remember how it felt, as a small child (before the laws
changed), when my teacher would pick up the Bible (the new testament)
and read a passage each day before we recited the Lord's Prayer (which
is, of course, a Christian prayer). Often the word "Jesus" or
"Christ" was included. I was only 5 or 6, but I would squirm and feel
so incredibly uncomfortable, and I still remember that awful feeling
of being stuck and not knowing what to do. I understood on some level
that this was wrong, that it wasn't what my family believed in, that I
was not supposed to ever bow my head in the name of Jesus, that the
"new testament" had NOTHING to do with my religion. But I also knew
that my parents had taught me to respect authority and that you were
supposed to do what the teacher said.

Do you even have a clue what that might feel like? What, in fact, it
STILL feels like. As a grown adult, I become 5 or 6 years old again
when I'm in that situation. There is NO place for religion in
government. I have just as much right as anybody else to feel
comfortable at a public event. When a government chooses to push
something like that down unwilling throats, what they are basically
saying is that I don't count because I don't believe the same things.
But I am a citizen, too, and I pay my taxes just like anyone else.
Talk about disenfranchisement...

I often do an exercise in my clinical practice to help people gain a
different perspective. When a 240 pound guy who is married to a 120
pound woman doesn't understand why she might feel intimidated when he
gets angry and punches his fist through the wall, or pushes her, or
stands over her and "orders" her to do something even though he
"didn't mean to be absuive," I suggest that he go home and try to put
on her t-shirt. He usually comes back amazed that he couldn't even
get his wrist through the armhole. "Wow, it never occurred to me that
she was that much smaller than me." Good. Now he understands how the
size differential alone might be a little intimidating.

Now try this. Imagine that our government leaders WERE Muslim, and
that you were sitting at a government-sponsored event at which they
asked everybody to get on their knees and say a prayer to Allah. Do
you think you might be a bit uncomfortable when everybody around you
got down on their knees?

It always helps to put yourself in another's shoes and remember that
"I am you and you are me." Prayer of any type does NOT belong in a
government-sponsored event.

Best,

Arlene

Great post Arlene. Put themselves in others shoes is exactly what the
neocons are great at avoiding. "If they ain't like me, then they are
wrong" is there mantra. Sick of them and their supporters.

hans

 

In sci.physics Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:29:38 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net
wrote:

And don't forget that as the control surfaces are motor-moved (however
little) the pressure must be fed back to the pedals and yolk, requiring yet
more hardware. Beginning students may not yet understand this, but most
flying is done by applying pressure, more than it is forcing movement.

Force feedback to the joystick is nice but not really manditory. The
model airplane crowd have been flying for years using muliple
joysticks, pots, slide pots, and switched without the benfit of force
feedback. Presumably, a full size aircraft will have some manner of
sensors to prevent ripping the wings off.

Real world tests with professional test pilots in the early development
of fly-by-wire found that absent force feedback control of the airplane
was sloppy at best.

So yes, it is possible but you wouldn't want to do it.

As far as model airplanes go, I haven't seen many (actually none) landings
I'd call a greaser.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 11, 1:55?pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 11, 12:29?pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
And don't forget that as the control surfaces are motor-moved (however
little) the pressure must be fed back to the pedals and yolk, requiring yet
more hardware. ?Beginning students may not yet understand this, but most
flying is done by applying pressure, more than it is forcing movement.- Hide quoted text -

That is only true if there are pedals and a yoke.

Wrong, presure feedback is an important part of flying and something
you will learn if you ever start actually doing it.

I never said that force-feedback was unnecessary. I simply said that
it might be a good idea to eliminate the pedals and yoke for something
that would be lighter than pedals and yoke, using electronics. The
same technology used in game controllers could be used airplanes, but
more rugged.

The yoke and pedals don't weigh much of anything and have to be strong
enough to stand up a panic application of force no matter what they
are hooked to.

Game controllers use sticks or yokes and pedals, so what you are really
saying is you want to replace sticks or yokes and pedal with sticks or
yokes and pedals.

It seems that it would be technically feasible to create a different
kind of control system where the pedals are eliminated and the yoke is
place with something that uses more plastic+wire+actuator than steel/
cables/pulley?

Yeah, like what?

Something similar to joystick. I'd use two instead of one, and place
them on the sides, so that view to (large) LCD panel is not obscured.

A human being has two hands and two feet.

Use the hands for flying. Feet for something else not yet discussed.

One hand needs to be free for "other" stuff.

That leaves one hand and two feet to control the airplane.

What would you have other than a yoke or stick and pedals to provide
3 axis control?

Two sticks, one on each side. There is also the matter of the
computer. There are somethings that can be done by a human, like
indicating what they want to happen, and others that could be done by
computer, like making it happen.

So it would require two hands to control the airplane instead of one.

Now, how do you write down a clearance or transponder code from ATC?

How do you adjust the engine controls?

How do you open or close the cabin air vents, wipe your nose, clean
your glasses, open a chart, take a drink, or any of a number of things
you need a free hand to do while in flight?

Now you could allways cross couple the rudder and ailerons like in
an Ercoupe, and eliminate the rudder pedals but now you lost the ability
to slip, which if you ever start really flying, you will find is an
important ability to have and why the later Ercoupes had a rudder retrofit.

I thought that design was mostly a mechanical change, not computer.

Yes, everything in the Ercoupe was mechanical, but that is irrelevant.

In a real fly-by-wire airplane the yoke/stick and pedals are usually
connected by a cable and pulley system to the sensor and feedback
force motor.

There are other ways of doing it that would eliminate cables, pulleys,
weight.

So name it.

The controls have to link to something to sense the input motion and
provide force feedback. That requires a motion sensor and a motor.

You can't just bolt a stick to a motor shaft.

On some the system is hydraulic which eliminates some, but not all
of the cables required.

Again, you can't just bolt the stick/yoke to the motor shaft.

Never said I would do that.

Then say how you would do it and quite avoiding the question.

There is a lot that can be done with localized feedback, a computer,
and light-weight wiring system, but not a wiring system where there is
a direct connection between the joystick and the surface it would
control. The connection would be between the joystick and a computer,
and between the computer and sensors/actuators.

Sheer babble.

You can't bolt a motor shaft directly to a flight surface or a stick.

How are you going to mechanically connect the stick and control surfaces
to their motors and sensors without a cable and pulley system?

And you have still not addressed the base question of what is it that
a fly-by-wire system could do in a GA aircraft that conventional
systems can not do.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:

On 9/11/08 10:50 AM, in article
bc350677-f0a8-4957-b64a-11f88fbdc7c2@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com, "Le Chaud
Lapin" <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 11, 12:29?pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
And don't forget that as the control surfaces are motor-moved (however
little) the pressure must be fed back to the pedals and yolk, requiring yet
more hardware. ?Beginning students may not yet understand this, but most
flying is done by applying pressure, more than it is forcing movement.- Hide
quoted text -

That is only true if there are pedals and a yoke.

It seems that it would be technically feasible to create a different
kind of control system where the pedals are eliminated and the yoke is
place with something that uses more plastic+wire+actuator than steel/
cables/pulley?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

You are talking about a pilotless aircraft then.

He has no clue what he is talking about.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.