Driver to drive?

[Charles]

OK, I won't buy one.

 

[Tom from Texas]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d7KdnWR7ZoH29FfVnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@earthlink.com...

hank alrich wrote:

Tony Weber <mycroftxxx@SOCKSspeakeasy.net> wrote:

You said that you had never seen trailers in Alaska after someone
called
Palin "Trailer Trash." Then what were you trying to imply?

Maybe he's blind.


Actually, I am just regaining my eyesight after being blind for three
months from a palsy in my right eye, and have been legally blind most of
my life. I have to wait three more months before the VA will decide if
they will operate to repair the rest of the damage. I am not allowed to
drive without glasses. Do you find something funny about being
disabled? If you do you'll laugh your sick ass off that I'm a 100%
disabled veteran. None of this has anything to do with an idiot trying
to put his words in my mouth.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

None is so blind as he who WILL not see.

--
Tom from Texas
(The Tom Risner Fund for Deserving North Texas Guitarplayers is not liable
for any slander, hurt feelings, pointless moaning, or achy-breaky heartache
any
post under this name should cause. Yall want some easy cash or sympathy...
ya can kiss my grits!! )

 

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

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:45:05 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

Yeah, something like that. There was also considerable resistance
from the airline pilots union (Teamsters) over potentially losing some
jobs. They seemed to be afraid of hands off landings which might
allow the airlines to hire less experienced pilots. I don't remember
much about the situation except that it died very slowly and in
stages, rather than a sudden termination of funding and testing.
Whatever the price or politics, MLS did demonstrate that it was
possible to do hands off landings.

As I recall there were also non-compatible European schemes which
caused the political problems as any system adopted would need to
be an international standard.

Thin skin because I've dealt with far too many naifs that have read
a couple of web articles on aviation and think they know everything
there is to be known about flying.

Well, that's good description of me.

No, its not, you are not an idiot.

why prevent someone else from doing something simply because you find
it unacceptable? There seems to be reasonable arguments on both sides
of the fly by wire and force feedback argument that would make it at
least worth trying. If the industry adopted your logic, nothing would
ever get done simply because the best and most radical ideas tend to
collect the most critics and criticism. Dumb ideas are usually
ignored and left to demonstrate their own shortcomings. I initially
thought Mr Lapin's ideas were rather marginal. Yet, with all the
resistance and attention you're giving to the problem, I'm beginning
to suspect that his ideas might be worthy of a closer look (after they
get more organized).

Industry and the military made the decision decades ago and all
fly-by-wire airplanes have force feedback.

For GA, ignoring for a moment no one would be willing to pay for the
cost of a fly-by-wire system in a GA airplane, such an airplane
without force feedback would not be able to meet the Part 23 requirements
for stability and controlablity.

For home builts, anyone could build one if they so desired, however
you would never be able to sell a kit or plans as the airplane would
quickly get the reputation of being squirrelly without force feedback.

Back on subject (Electric Airplane), I wonder if the motor becomes a
generator on decent and re-charges the LIPO batteries?

Not likely since you still carry a fair amount of power until short
final.

Generating power implies the prop is acting as a brake which in turn
implies a severe decent angle and an ear popping rate of decent.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Skywalker]

OK, fair enough - we'll quit wasting OUR time listening to things that
you can't prove.

Good Luck!
RIch

Coming from someone that speaks about something before getting their facts
straight... "what did Queen Victoria expect Columbus"

I hope your not an engineer.

Good luck to you too.

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"MK" <nospam@please.com> wrote in message
newsbKdncbjyrby9lfVnZ2dnUVZ8sGdnZ2d@bt.com...

"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:almyk.79$YU2.18@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...

"mpm" <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a4268f94-c499-4486-ae05-5df3a338c9e6@l43g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 7:12?pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com

Just like all leftist weenies you miss that Obama purposefully dredged
that up to slam Sarah... trying to negate the "pit bull" amusement.

Honestly, (I probably shouldn't admit this...?)

I think Obama said it (it's a common expression everyone uses), AND
THEN IMMEDIATELY realized how it might be interpreted vis-a-vis Palin,
and tried to cover it with another analogy about wrapping old fish in
a newspaper called "change".
========

I don't know what his intentions were and I don't remember what first
popped in my mind when I heard it but I thought about it both ways.

BUT, obviously if he's such an intelligent guy he would have known better
and not used. So we can only gather he is not as intelligent as people
want to make him out to be.

I mean... it doesn't take much to see the commonality between "lipstick
on a pitbull" and "lipstick on a pig" specially when it was such a big
punchline and still in peoples minds.

So it's not so much if he intended it or not(and by the crowed laughing
they all got what he most likely was intending) but that he should have
known better. We'll never know what he was intending but we do know how
it was percieved... even by his own "people".

But since he said he didn't intend for it to be that way I think we would
have to take it as face value.... of course if it continues to do such
things over and over then he should be held accountable.




Don't you feel that your (probably correct imo) analysis is a little too
relaxed and rational for this NG ?

Sorry... I had a momentary lapse. I always forget that civility has long
since been dead.

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"Wilbur Slice" <wilbur@wilburslicehome.com> wrote in message
news:98sjc4pd2gutvfp6defc4oo5895d9orq7a@4ax.com...

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:58:36 -0700, "B. Peg"
bent_peg69@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

hans wrote:
With her sarcastically caustic attitude and penchant for firing people
first (then maybe asking questions later), this could very well be a
self-fulfilling prophecy.

No matter. Hillary did far better with her Travel Gate firings and she
wasn't even a V.P.

Least Obama fired his racist Reverend Wright, although a little late.
Good
thing the Dems secured his wife's racist thesis from Princeton from
viewing
until after the election (it's on Snopes.com though).


I read the thesis. I don't get it - what is it that you think is
"racist" about it?

The fact that she seems to think every "whitey" is out to get her and keep
her down and her people down.

It's not only racist it shows she has an inferiority complex... the racism
might be a natural by product of it though.

First that she seems to think white people owe her something or her people
something. This was a white mans country so what do you expect?

Maybe she's just a complete idiot though and thinks that because the white
man brought slaves from blacks in africa(yes, africans were selling there
own people as slaves... but don't blame them... push all the blame on whites
for buying them) that somehow when they got here they were going to be made
equal and given equal cut in the plantations?

So called white racism is a byproduct of captialism(hence all the liberals
who want socialism)... sure it's wrong to some degree(specially when actual
harm is done) but what does she expect? I can understand she was only an
undergrad at the time of the paper but all those years studying afterwards
only made her more stupid?

It wouldn't be all that bad if she wasn't such a racist now. But the fact
that her husband is running for president and both have inferiority
complexes and racist tendencies shows a big problem. I guess the democrats,
at least some, think by making them president it will somehow solve the race
problem?

Unfortunately what can you do? The problem is in their own head. I imagine
that they do not want it any other way either... that's the way they been
all their life and change is very hard. It's like a poor person not able to
become rich and sabatoge any chance they have. Look at all the lotto winners
that blew it all and are not poor again.

It's unfortunate that someone like Obama and his wife get such a chance to
be president when there are plenty of intelligent(and more intelligent)
black couples that deserve it more and don't say shit like "...first time
I've been proud of my country", write papers talking about how racist white
people are, and associate themselfs with america haters.

The problem is, is that true intelligent blacks tend to be moderate or
conservative... oh, I know you think people like snoop dogg and ludacris are
"intelligent" but I'm talking about the other kinda of "intelligence"... you
know, not the kind that involves calling people bitches and hoes and talking
about racist white people and killing cops... the kinda intelligence that
involves balancing a checkbook, solving some math problems, writing some
reports, maybe knowing a bit about economics, etc...

It's just another case of the democratic party trying to use blacks and keep
them oppressed. By giving them a "hero", which is completely controlled and
under the "white man's thumb"(which in this case is the democratic party),
they'll be able to keep the blacks in line and democratic for many years to
come. (there are many many other strategies they use too) The true
racists(although they do it only for political reasons but essentially
equals racism) are the democratic party and the fact that Obama will
probably become president is an insult to all the real intelligent black
people that worked their way from the bottom up and didn't bitch and whine
because they didn't get everything handed too them.

But of course racism is an excuse for blacks... and thats exactly what sucks
about all this shit... is that no matter who gets electected the issue will
be worse. If Obama does get elected then they will keep blacks down but
promise hope. They might implement new programs that give blacks better
chances but ultimately they will have to keep them in poverty to keep their
vote. If Obama looses then everyone will be crying racism and blacks still
won't get anywhere.

You can have black guy get fired by a white guy and it would be called
racism... under the exact same circumstances, but the guy being white, would
not be called racism. We see this all the time. To many blacks use it as an
excuse for failing instead of finding that inner drive to get past the
obstacles in life and truely succede.

....and success is not thinking that everyone is out to "get you" like
michelle obama seems to believe. You would think that wiht the success they
have had in their life that she would be proud... even the fact that she
went to college(how many blacks were going to college at the time... who's
fault is it? oh whitey!!) when most people around her were not.

I guess some people look at the glass and see it as half full... michelle
obama just see's it as a racist glass out to get her.

 

[Bob Eld]

"Fred" <frederick.brown@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e5fcec6-c733-4927-9fa2-e8c4a10b7f66@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

I have an audio amp based on the LM3886. In order to get 50W out of
it I need to use a transformer who voltage rises too high for the
LM3886 to tolerate during no or light load times.

I have modeled a linear regulator for the amp, but is is very
wasteful, it dissipates over a hundred watts a channel. I had to
parallel four regulators on each rail in order to keep their
individual dissipations manageable.

I have started considering a switched mode power supply, and have been
looking at chips such as the LM5116. Some time ago, I heard using
SMPSs in audio amplifers in problematic because of the difficulty in
filtering out the switching noise from the output.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

FB

I think you are putting the effort in the wrong place. Instead of screwing
with regulators, switching supplies and the like, the effort should go into
the amplifier(s) and not the power supply.

If it were me, I'd design an amplifier to replace the 3886 using discrete
components that had sufficient head room for any voltage I desired,
unregulated. Plus and minus 20 volts, plus and minus 30 volts, plus and
minus 40 volts, or more, whatever.

Remember a well designed amplifier does not need regulated power, it is in
effect a high speed (regulator) on it's own, turning raw DC into controlled
(regulated) audio voltage. adding additional regulation is redundant,
wasteful and can be noisy. Why do it? Put the effort into the amplifier not
the power supply to fix a poor amplifier.

 

[JDS]

"Fan" <TurnagainArm@hotmail.com> wrote.....
On Sep 12, 9:10 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
Fan wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Any chance you guys could take this off
of RMMGA now? Just asking.

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"mpm" <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a8dd74c4-fd6a-4291-a4a1-00bbdfa4fbfe@l43g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 13, 5:54?am, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com> wrote:

"Wilbur Slice" <wil...@wilburslicehome.com> wrote in message

news:98sjc4pd2gutvfp6defc4oo5895d9orq7a@4ax.com...





On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:58:36 -0700, "B. Peg"
bent_pe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

hans ?wrote:
With her sarcastically caustic attitude and penchant for firing people
first (then maybe asking questions later), this could very well be a
self-fulfilling prophecy.

No matter. ?Hillary did far better with her Travel Gate firings and she
wasn't even a V.P.

Least Obama fired his racist Reverend Wright, although a little late.
Good
thing the Dems secured his wife's racist thesis from Princeton from
viewing
until after the election (it's on Snopes.com though).

I read the thesis. ?I don't get it - what is it that you think is
"racist" about it?

The fact that she seems to think every "whitey" is out to get her and keep
her down and her people down.

Unfortunately, that's probably not too far from the truth.
An unacceptably large percentage of "whitey" do still look down on non-
whites.
There is a strong expectation that it must be kept under the radar,
and often times the effect is very subtle, but don't deny its not
happening.
-------------

Damn, I wish you would use a proper newgroup reader ;/

unacceptable? Do you realize that non-whites look down on whites? The
majority of asians think white's are out to still their women. It's true as
most of my friends are asian and have said this(basically the reason why the
olympics are so important to them).

It's not racist but evolution. Do tigers and lions associate? Do apes and
chimps? To pretend that such things don't exist is just ignorance.

Is it not racist for her to assume that every non-black is out to get her?
That's the exact same as a white person assuming every black is out to get
him. Yet for some reason we can't call a black racist... specially the first
lady(which she will be).

============
I know other managers that when they got a resume on their desk from
Tamika (or some other black sounding name) they didn't even bother to
read it. (I've even known some black managers to do this - so yeah,
its happens!)
--------

fuck man.. I wonder why? whats the chance of "tamika" being a nigger? thats
right... a fucking nigger? You think the guy wants to take a chance on some
thug that will hurt productivity because the person was raised in the hood?
The hood that the democrats created for the sole purpose of keeping blacks
oppressed for their own political benefit.

It's not racism that does that... it's called "stating what is true" and
it's true that many blacks(if not a majority) or not equal to whites. It's
not because of their color! oh wait!! it is!!! it's because they use their
color as an excuse. It's not their fault though... the democratic party have
been filling their brains with this racism crap for over half a century.

Sure racism does exist but a guy that doesn't hire a black guy isn't
necessarily racist.

It's not up to whites to serve blacks... we've done enough(in fact too much)
and it's time they realize they have just as much oppurtunity as anyone
else(if not more).

Again though, what can you expect when the democratic party won't let these
people think for themselfs.


==========

Maybe she's just a complete idiot though and thinks that because the white
man brought slaves from blacks in africa(yes, africans were selling there
own people as slaves... but don't blame them... push all the blame on
whites
for buying them) that somehow when they got here they were going to be
made
equal and given equal cut in the plantations?

Surely you are not suggesting that blame should stop with a simple
commercial transaction??
What about everything that happened after the sale?
Rosewood comes immediately to mind.
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aah/rosewood-massacre-1923
----------


ok, and? Are you saying because it was a racist crime that all blacks for
the rest of time should be taken care of and should be able to use racism as
an excuse?

will you please go look up white on white crime too... and black on black.

Just because a white(black) person hurts a black(white) person doesn't mean
it's a racist crime... even if it is doesn't mean shit. Get over it. racism
just doesn't exist anymore relative to the way it was.

Just because people don't give every black person a job doesn't mean you or
anyone else can bitch about racism. That black person can go find another
job just like the white people that don't get hired.




=====

Unfortunately what can you do? ?The problem is in their own head. I
imagine
that they do not want it any other way either... that's the way they been
all their life and change is very hard. ?It's like a poor person not able
to
become rich and sabatoge any chance they have. Look at all the lotto
winners
that blew it all and are not poor again.

You have issues.
---

Yep... people like you...

===========
"...first time

I've been proud of my country",

Why is that people continue to construe this statement in a negative
way?
For someone in their mid-40s HONESTLY, what has there been to be proud
of.
Be specific. (Think big. No small deals here.)

Landing on the Moon? OK.
HAART therapy for HIV/Aids patients? OK.
What else??

And no matter what else you come up with, it would be a cinch to
counter each and every one with about a dozen or so things NOT to be
proud of.
---------


haha... you have it all figured out.

No wonder this country is fucked up... I seriously wonder how people like
you even exist.

It's just another case of the democratic party trying to use blacks and
keep
them oppressed. By giving them a "hero", which is completely controlled
and
under the "white man's thumb"(which in this case is the democratic party),
they'll be able to keep the blacks in line and democratic for many years
to
come. (there are many many other strategies they use too) The true
racists(although they do it only for political reasons but essentially
equals racism) are the democratic party and the fact that Obama will
probably become president is an insult to all the real intelligent black
people that worked their way from the bottom up and didn't bitch and whine
because they didn't get everything handed too them.

Like I said.... Issues.

But of course racism is an excuse for blacks... and thats exactly what
sucks
about all this shit... is that no matter who gets electected the issue
will
be worse. If Obama does get elected then they will keep blacks down but
promise hope. They might implement new programs that give blacks better
chances but ultimately they will have to keep them in poverty to keep
their
vote. If Obama looses then everyone will be crying racism and blacks still
won't get anywhere.

Face it dude, whites are quickly becoming the minority.
The only question is whether the blacks or the hispanics will overtake
us first. ?
-----------


ok, whats your point?

Do you think those blacks or hispanics will do for us what we have done for
them?

It might take 200 hundred or more years... with maybe a little slavery
involved but eventually they probably will...

=========

You can have black guy get fired by a white guy and it would be called
racism... under the exact same circumstances, but the guy being white,
would
not be called racism. ?We see this all the time. To many blacks use it as
an
excuse for failing instead of finding that inner drive to get past the
obstacles in life and truely succede.

Technically, to be a successful speller, the word is "succeed".
But I don't want to nit-pick.
-------------

I hope not... as theres much more to life than spelling... I hope you do
realize that?

====

My earlier point about Tamika is your same argument in reverse.
It's hard to be successful when you can't even get your foot in the
door.
----

um... don't we have welfare? unemployment, etc...?

Almost everyone now can graduate highschool and directly go to college or
community college and get grants/loans... so your argument is bs.

The only issue is that the parents have to get their kids to actually
graduate... but they don't! why? Cause of whitey right? All the teachers are
against the black kids?!? And the schools that have all black teachers are
just underfunded!!!

How bout instead of rappers, sports, and gangers being the rolemodels of
black kids that it be intelligent successful people? Is that too much to
ask?

====

...and success is not thinking that everyone is out to "get you" like
michelle obama seems to believe. You would think that wiht the success
they
have had in their life that she would be proud... even the fact that she
went to college(how many blacks were going to college at the time... who's
fault is it? oh whitey!!) when most people around her were not.

I guess some people look at the glass and see it as half full... michelle
obama just see's it as a racist glass out to get her

And some people see that glass as a busted off beer bottle held by a
black mugger trying to take whitey's wallet. (When they won't even be
considered for employment.)

No doubt racial problems exist - I don't pretend to have all (if any?)
of the answers.
I do know it's not simple.
------------

I'm not saying it is simple or that racism doesn't exist. There definitely
racist fuckers out their but that doesn't mean every time a black person is
disciminated against it is racism... that doesn't mean every time a black
person is called a nigger that the person saying it is racist.

The majority of my friends through my life have been non-caucasian... many
have been asian and about 10% have been black. My best friend during high
school was black. But I'm racist for saying nigger or for saying that
blacks need to get off their ass?

Just because I use the term black? If I said the same thing about asians no
one would complain(or very few). If I said the same about white people then
it's A ok?

The problem I have is that instead of empowerying blacks by getting them to
think positively about the world and that it requires hard work the
democratic party gets them to think they have no chance because "the man"
will never let them make it. And the democratic party does this explicitly
to keep them oppressed(the very thing they are trying to excape and the
democrats claim to help them with) so they can get their vote.

It's fucking ridiculous.



Now the problem is not that blacks don't have the ability(they are
geneticially different than any other race as all races are different but
everyone is close enough) but that they are in a vicious cycle. But the only
way to get out of that cycle is for the children to see that they can make
it if they try hard... and not in sports or rapping but in education. But
this is extremely difficult when the parents don't give a shit.

Even if their is racism on a significant level their is still no excuse to
give up. All it does is hurt the person doing the giving up. But this is
exactly what the democratic party wants.

Their have been many examples of blacks who faced some extreme racism but
made it because they didn't give up... these people should be examples but
are they? No, you have thugs and rappers as the examples... so who's fault
is it? the republicans?

 

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

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:25:05 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

Argh. You chopped off the best parts of my rant. Oh well.

In sci.physics Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
Well, that's good description of me.

No, its not, you are not an idiot.

As far as aviation is concerned, I may as well be. I would like to
think that my background and education qualifies me to 2nd guess my
way through the technology. Usually, that works for the basics, but
fails miserably where experience would be a better teacher than
physics. I would prefer to be treated as an idiot so I can "harvest"
the explanations.

I haven't heard any claims from you that you know better than the
results of a hundred years of experience based on your couple of unrelated
engineering classes.

Industry and the military made the decision decades ago and all
fly-by-wire airplanes have force feedback.

Yep. However, I'm suspicious. Man is a very conservative animal
which doesn't change it ways very easily. The market for fly by wire
airplanes are almost totally composed of existing cable and pulley
pilots. They have developed a preference for force feedback and would
probably insist that any future technology retain the older features.
It's something like the automobile industry taking 10 year to get rid
of the buggy whip socket, typewriter features on computah keyboards,
printers that were really motorized typewriters, and other elements of
conservative product design. Also parachute design, which I've been
told took years to get away from the round chute. Rather than retrain
experienced pilots, it probably makes more sense to give them an
environment that they're familiar with. With all the regulatory and
historical baggage to consider, radical changes will become
evolutionary changes.

If it works and is easy to use, why change it?

You're advocating German engineering; the people will accomodate the
machine rather than building the machine to accomodate the people.

Incidentally, I don't think Neil Armstrong had force feedback on the
Apollo capsule moon lander.

I must have missed seeing the wings and other aerodynamic surfaces
on the Apollo capsule.

AIR, there was also a predictor to help with getting the vertical
speed to zero at the same time as the altitude.

For GA, ignoring for a moment no one would be willing to pay for the
cost of a fly-by-wire system in a GA airplane, such an airplane
without force feedback would not be able to meet the Part 23 requirements
for stability and controlablity.

Spoken like a bureaucrat, where literally everything needs to fit into
the existing regulatory structure. I've spent years watching the
alternative energy horde struggle with codes and regulations, many of
which were totally unsuitable for the intended purpose. It was only
in about 2001 when the NFPA finally got around to even recognizing
alternative energy. The technology had to change a little, but most
of the changes were in the regulations and codes. The same will be
for any new thing in aviation. You can force fit an electric airplane
into the existing regulatory framework, but there will need to be some
changes.

Those requlations are built on a huge pile of dead bodies.

There may be some minor areas for quibble, but not for basic stuff
like stability and controlablity.

For home builts, anyone could build one if they so desired, however
you would never be able to sell a kit or plans as the airplane would
quickly get the reputation of being squirrelly without force feedback.

Well, there are several ways to view an airplane design. One is a box
that flys through the air and is moved by an air motor. You start
with the aerodynamic surfaces and add the necessary propulsion.
Another is to start with an engine, and build the aerodynamics around
it. Since this is about an electric airplane, some major changes will
need to be made. For example, the infernal combustion engine tends to
be a rather compact device, with a concentrated center of gravity,
while the electric motor and its battery pile, can have the weight
distributed around the airframe. There's also no (major) efficiency
gain from concentrating the propulsion in a single motor. A series of
small electric motors can be distributed along the wing. While
elevators, flaps, rudders, and other control surfaces are nice for
gliding, with multiple motors, it might be possible use the motors for
directional control. Use your imagination.

My imagination says depending on motors for directional control will
ultimately result in a smoking crater.

Actually, there are a lot of very good aerodynamic reasons to minimize
the number of motors on an airplane, no matter what type they are.

That was discovered in the very early days of aviation.

Mr Lapin apparently has a functional imagination. However, he has a
different problem. He fails to separate the important problems from
the trivia. Much of what he suggests has to do with accessories,
options, gadgets, goodies, convenience features, and other dross that
has little to do with the basic functioning of an electric airplane.
Ignore the propulsion and aerodynamic issues, and all the SDR and
computah technology is not going to make the pile of ideas fly.

That and he has weird ideas like somehow magically a socketed LED
is easier to change than a socketed incandescent lamp.

Note: I have the advantage in using my imagination. Since I don't
know what I'm doing in aviation and aerodynamics, I don't know what
cannot be done and what will not work. Same for Mr Lapin. We may
therefore produce a wide array of dumb and impractical ideas, but
among the debris, you might find a few good ideas and imaginative
solutions. Keep an open mind.

If someone suggests replacing rubber balloons with steel ones to minimize
the helium leakage, I'll give the idea everything it deserves...

Drivel: One of my past side activities was helping out at the local
high skool on their senior projects. Everyone gets to build and/or
design something in their senior year (usually in small teams). While
I try to keep some of the ideas within the range of what can be
accomplished in a few weeks, the degree of imagination and originality
of these kids is far beyond what I've seen in industry. I have a
guess where we lose it. It's possible to be creative and imaginative
within a regulatory framework, but it's much more difficult.

A lot of regulations exist because people are dead.

Before someone whines about being constrained by regulations they need
to find out why the regulation exists.

Back on subject (Electric Airplane), I wonder if the motor becomes a
generator on decent and re-charges the LIPO batteries?

Not likely since you still carry a fair amount of power until short
final.

Generating power implies the prop is acting as a brake which in turn
implies a severe decent angle and an ear popping rate of decent.

Ooops. Y'er right. Yet, it would be tempting to use gravity to
recover some energy. For example, if the mythical electric airplane
were to have oversized wing surfaces (for gliding and STOL), it might
be possible recover some energy without going into a steep dive. It
won't be much, but if the added energy recovery can produce a
proportionate reduction in the size and weight of the LIPO battery
pile for the same flight duration, it's a win.

It is all fantasy anyway since absent a major breakthrough in battery
technology there isn't going to be any practical electric airplanes.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Jon Slaughter]

snipped the reset of this racist tirade

racist tirade huh? Because I state facts I'm a racist... That was my whole
point... say anything against blacks and your a racist. I guess thats how
you debate... can't actually argue anything based on facts and logic so you
just call people racists.

I guess you think I give a shit about your opinion. In fact I'd be willing
to wager that you are more racist than I am. We'll need some independent and
objective person to judge though... what would you wager? 1k$ an arm? your
life?

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:v91oc4ls6mv5ejbc7go65ouqmcjm9luhkg@4ax.com...

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:20:12 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote:


snipped the reset of this racist tirade


racist tirade huh? Because I state facts I'm a racist... That was my
whole
point... say anything against blacks and your a racist.

Correct. People are individuals; to treat them as classes, based on
color, is racism.

So if I'm a doctor and I note that the individual is black and that blacks
have a higher chance of hypertension and treat that person accordingly then
I'm racist?

If I note that almost all islamic terrorists are arabic then I'm racist? If
I'm studying the education of a certain race and note that they are more
deficient then others then I'm a racist?

How bout one look at it objectively and state the facts without regard to
any racial preconcieved notions and if it happens to be a negative then
thats just what it is.

I think you got it wrong. It's up to the individual to prove they are not
the stereotype... thats exactly why a damn stereotype is a stereotype(it
came from somewhere).

Racism is when you believe that an entire race is inferior... not half the
race, not 99% or 99.999% but 100%.

You can't like one black person and hate the rest if your a racist... makes
no sense. Now you might be extremely intolerant and prejudice but that is
not racism. Everyone is prejudice to some degree.

If you see a black guy at, say, a party and he dresses like a thug and seems
to be acting like a thug then it is that guys problem for being that way. He
could be the nicest guy in the world and you might want him as a friend but
it is job to show you he's not a thug and not your job to assume he isn't.
It goes against human nature not to judge people. To pretend or ignore that
fact is just complete ignorance.

The fact of the matter is that people have and always will assume things on
an individual level. Now when people are presented with the facts and they
ignore them then that is wrong. If the black showed you that he was a decent
guy but you still believed he was a thug then thats your fault.

I'm not saying people should just go around jumping to any conclusion but
people are going to conclude... hopefully it's intelligently but to call it
something that it's not is more wrong.


Do all blacks bitch about racism? Obviously not. There are many successful
blacks that don't even think about that kinda stuff... but surely they live
in the same world as the rest of the blacks that are bitching... I guess
those people are just ignorant because they can't see all the racism? Maybe
they don't let it bother them because they know it doesn't ultimately
matter, or maybe they know it's just prejudice(and not racism), or maybe
they are just blind?

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"Shy Picker" <ShyPicker@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4f55bbef-cd21-4ca7-a8b6-1f2306b6a083@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 13, 5:54?am, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com> wrote:

"Wilbur Slice" <wil...@wilburslicehome.com> wrote in message

news:98sjc4pd2gutvfp6defc4oo5895d9orq7a@4ax.com...

Snipped the rest of the BS

First that she seems to think white people owe her something or her people
something. This was a white mans country so what do you expect?

What are you talkin' about, Pale Face!
---


hehe... I guess that is suppose to be a insult?

 

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

1. I have not tested it yet, so I do not know how well it would work,
or if it would work [though it seems reasonable to me in context of
Newtonian physics].

The only way known to science to propel a free flying aircraft is to
accerate air (ignoring rockets).

The only way known to science to accelerate air in sufficient volume
is by the use of a fan of some sort, as in a propeller or the fans
in a jet.

Methods like ion wind don't produce enough volume.

If you have stumbled onto some hitherto unknown method of propulsion,
you need to get your suit cleaned for your Nobel acceptance ceremony.

Right. There is a benefit from getting to close to status quo. Total
rejection of extant knowledge is not good, but neither is total
acceptance. There is an optimal mid-point at which an outsider might
linger in a state of amusement for maximum observability. Sometimes
one might find something. Sometimes not.

Babbling nonsense.

You can't possibly know if an idea is new unless you know what all
the old ideas are.

Vector math was taboo.

Total, utter, nonsense.

Knowing how to do a wind triangle problem is a required subject for
a private pilot and wind triangles are vector math.

And then I talked to my flight instructor, then ground school owner,
again, and discovered that most pilots did not understand basic
aerodynamics. If you ask them why planes fly, they rattle something
off about Bernoulli's principle. Bernoulli's principle is correct, but
their employment of it was wrong.

Yeah, lots of people that are not aerodynamic engineers don't really
understand the basic physics of lift.

So what?

If someone suggests replacing rubber balloons with steel ones to minimize
the helium leakage, I'll give the idea everything it deserves...

Thus validating my supposition that certain would-be critiques are
predisposed to regard the new idea as being bad before it is known
what the idea is.

Babbling drivel; I stated what the idea is.

Note that I have not been the one whining about regulation. On the
contrary, I have been defending the need for it, as well as the FAA
itself. It has been the pilots who have beens stating that nothing
will be innovated signigicantly different from Cessna-tractor model
because FAA would never allow it.

Lier.

You've constantly said you would use materials not allowed by regulation
and the latest flight into Emperor of the Universe world was stating
you would totally change how ATC works.

Under what category would fuel-cell plane fall?

Fuel cells are fuel cells. Though they sort of work like a battery,
they are sufficiently different that they get their own name.

The techonological state of fuel cells as regards airplane is the same
as batteries; a practical fuel cell powered airplane is fantasy absent
a major technological breakthrough.

What is it that you home built fly-by-wire airplane will be able to do
that any modern airplane such as a Cirrus SR22 can't do?

What materials are you going to use to build the airframe of your
home built?

If you encounter significant turbulence, what is the first thing you
do and why?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:25:07 GMT) it happened
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in <cdntp5-uff.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:

The only way known to science to propel a free flying aircraft is to
accerate air (ignoring rockets).

The only way known to science to accelerate air in sufficient volume
is by the use of a fan of some sort, as in a propeller or the fans
in a jet.

No fan needed:

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

Atomic ramjet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

I have also see a Dutch helicopter fly with ramjets on the rotorblades, many many decennia ago.

Yeah, I should have added the disclaimer that rockets and ramjets don't
count as neither is practical for GA aircraft.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Fred"

I have been looking at thoses 1kW rack mount PA amplifiers, and
wondering how in the world do they get that power in such a small
place. I know SMPSs have something to do with it.

** In nearly all examples, the switching PSUs used are non-regulated - so
the DC output voltage varies with the AC supply voltage and has maybe 10%
100/120 Hz ripple voltage under load.

I have also seen the terms maginetic amplification

** No such thing in audio.

You may be thinking of Carver " Magnetic Field " amplifiers, which has got
to be the most misleading title ever printed on an audio power amplifier.
These amps used conventional, laminated iron transformers - just rather
small ones with a TRIAC pre-regulator in the AC supply.

and digital amplifaction

** Another marketing department invented misnomer that refers to PWM - a
purely analogue technique.



...... Phil

 

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

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:05:04 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

If it works and is easy to use, why change it?

I can't believe that you said that. If we adopted such a conservative
and possibly reactionary policy towards technology, we would be
driving horse carriages, writing with a goose quill pen, and dreaming
of flying. New ideas and products rarely offer revolutionary
improvements in anything. The entire world didn't toss their
incandescent bulbs when LED's arrived. Digital photography has not
totally trashed film. Home theater has not killed movie theaters.
Some people still use typewriters. Ad nauseam. Even the most
revolutionary products fail to produce the predicted mass migrations.

OK, so I forgot to add "and changing it offers no improvement in
either usability or price".

And as for your examples, the automobile provides a huge improvement
in usability and ease of use over the horse carriage, and the same
for the ball point pen over the goose quill.

You're advocating German engineering; the people will accomodate the
machine rather than building the machine to accomodate the people.

I don't recall even mentioning the pilot or passengers.

You were specifically saying pilots could learn to adapt to controls
without force feedback.

I'm saying expecting pilots to "adapt" and have yet greater skill
to operate something alread easy to operate is German engineering.

Those requlations are built on a huge pile of dead bodies.

Some sacrifices must be made in the name of progress.

The sacrifices have been made; there is no need to repeat the
experience.

There may be some minor areas for quibble, but not for basic stuff
like stability and controlablity.

Well, the various military stealth aircraft are quite unstable and
difficult to control.

Yeah, so what?

We are talking about normal category, Part 23 aircraft, NOT a weapon
of war with a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1, a highly stressed
airframe capable of extreme aerobatics, and a pilot wearing a G suit
who spends more time training than most GA pilots spend in total
flying in their lives.

Basing what should go in GA aircraft based on what is in military
aircraft makes as much sense as advocating nuclear reactors in bass
boats because military boats have them.

My imagination says depending on motors for directional control will
ultimately result in a smoking crater.

Well, your imagination is in top form. I looked up the method of
control for various flying wings and found that they don't use motors
for controlling the airplane. They use various drag surfaces instead.
The problem is somewhat unique to tail-less airplanes, where placing a
fin and rudder on the wing center is useless:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing
However, I'm again suspicious. My guess(tm) is that the reason motors
were not used for control is the difficulty of controlling motor speed
in propeller type aircraft. In the days before jets, we just didn't
have the sensors and computahs needed to control multiple small motors
in a predictable manner. That's one place where adding some computing
power might be useful.

If your control comes from power, how do you fly with little to no
power as on short final?

Actually, there are a lot of very good aerodynamic reasons to minimize
the number of motors on an airplane, no matter what type they are.

I think I can guess(tm) one of the reasons. Most of the work gets
done near the tips of the propellers because that's the point of
maximum air velocity. Near the spindle, there's not enough air flow
to do much. In addition, the motor or fuselage blocks the air flow.
So, the idea is to maximize the propeller diameter (without hitting
the runway). Therefore one big prop is more effective than two small
props with the same swept area. However, electric motors don't need
to be as big and bulky as infernal corruption engines. The can be
made long and thin, thus blocking less propeller area.

So can turboprops, yet there are LOTS of single engine turbopros.

Guess again.

That was discovered in the very early days of aviation.

Yep. So, we go back to basics and verify that the discovery still
holds for long thin multiple electric motors.

If someone suggests replacing rubber balloons with steel ones to minimize
the helium leakage, I'll give the idea everything it deserves...

Of course. Some such ideas are obviously not going to work.

And most of the "ideas" I seen on the subject fall well into that
category.

would not discourage that person from trying other materials.

A lot of regulations exist because people are dead.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin). Yeah, I
know it's out of context but it applies. The push for safety tends to
limit creativity, progress, innovation, and ingenuity. Also product
liability and prescription drug litigation. Someone dies and the
legislative machinery crafts restrictive regulations. Do this often
enough, and everything comes to a grinding halt. While it's rather
unpopular to advocate LESS safety, I sometimes think we've overdone it
in some areas.

Maybe, however for the specific topic at hand, unless you can point to
something in Part 23 for normal category airplanes to talk about, you
are just arm waving.

Before someone whines about being constrained by regulations they need
to find out why the regulation exists.

That's often not in the regulations. There are also regulations that
were inspired by manufacturer or interest group lobbyists to give them
an advantage. Knowing the background is always a good thing, but it's
usually difficult to find.

Nope.

All federal requlations have a discussion period before adoption.

It is all fantasy anyway since absent a major breakthrough in battery
technology there isn't going to be any practical electric airplanes.

Yep. That's what the pundits were saying in the 1970's when battery
technology became the limiting factor in everything from cell phones
to electric airplanes. Along came Lithium-Ion and LIPO, which offered
a big step in the right direction. Maybe a few more steps and we have
something slightly better, etc?

More than likely we will soon have something slightly better, but it
will take better than an order of magnitude improvement to make a
practical electric airplanes anything other than fantasy.

And there were portable phones in the 70's, you just couldn't put one
in your pocket, and as far as being a TELEPHONE, the current crop don't
do anything the 70's phones could do.

The trouble with aviation is that it attracts too many bright and
smart people. If its proponents were dumb, we wouldn't have to deal
an overdose of ideas such as:

Using gravity to get off the ground
http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/62341/Usinggravitytogetofftheground.aspx

That is not an airplane by definition; it is an airship.

Would you like a real, long list of reasons why that thing will never
be anything other than a curiosity and not allowed to fly much of
anywhere IF the genius that thought it up ever gets one built?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bob Eld]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48CC12E2.E97008E2@hotmail.com...

Bob Eld wrote:

"Fred" <frederick.brown@gmail.com> wrote

I have an audio amp based on the LM3886. In order to get 50W out of
it I need to use a transformer who voltage rises too high for the
LM3886 to tolerate during no or light load times.

I have modeled a linear regulator for the amp, but is is very
wasteful, it dissipates over a hundred watts a channel. I had to
parallel four regulators on each rail in order to keep their
individual dissipations manageable.

I have started considering a switched mode power supply, and have been
looking at chips such as the LM5116. Some time ago, I heard using
SMPSs in audio amplifers in problematic because of the difficulty in
filtering out the switching noise from the output.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

I think you are putting the effort in the wrong place. Instead of
screwing
with regulators, switching supplies and the like, the effort should go
into
the amplifier(s) and not the power supply.

If it were me, I'd design an amplifier to replace the 3886 using
discrete
components that had sufficient head room for any voltage I desired,
unregulated. Plus and minus 20 volts, plus and minus 30 volts, plus and
minus 40 volts, or more, whatever.

Designing a discrete amp to beat the LM3886 needs the kind of skills and
experience I have. It's NOT a hobby task.

The typical 'gainclone' circuit the OP is likely usung has PUNY reservoir
caps.
Around 1500uF IIRC. Make them 4700uF and use a larger transformer in
'under-rated mode' to get better supply regulation.


Remember a well designed amplifier does not need regulated power, it is
in
effect a high speed (regulator) on it's own, turning raw DC into
controlled
(regulated) audio voltage. adding additional regulation is redundant,
wasteful and can be noisy. Why do it? Put the effort into the amplifier
not
the power supply to fix a poor amplifier.

Since the LM3886 will sustain +/-47V (obviously allow for AC line
overvoltage
on top of this) where's his problem ?
http://www.national.com/mpf/LM/LM3886.html

Graham

I agree. I didn't mean that he should necessarily design the amp, maybe copy
one. But switching regulators are no simple hobby task either. Yes, looking
at the 94 volt range of the 3886 does beg the question, where is his
problem? I foolishly assumed he had one as he claimed.

My comments about the necessity of regulation still stand, however. There is
no reason what so ever that these amps will not work perfectly well with a
peak rectified, capacitor input voltage of +/- 30 volts under full load.
That would be over 50 watts per channel into 8 ohms. No regulators required
and a 17 volt over voltage margin on the raw voltage, each side.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Bob Eld"
"Eeysore"

Since the LM3886 will sustain +/-47V (obviously allow for AC line
overvoltage> on top of this) where's his problem ?
http://www.national.com/mpf/LM/LM3886.html


I agree.

** Foolish move to agree with any of the utter rubbish posted by the
Stevenson TROLL.

The fallacy of arguing from a position of 100% ignorance is his only talent.

I didn't mean that he should necessarily design the amp, maybe copy
one. But switching regulators are no simple hobby task either. Yes,
looking
at the 94 volt range of the 3886 does beg the question, where is his
problem?

** Read the specs more closely - the max safe supply voltage is actually
84 volts.

The 94 volt ( no drive) figure is meaningless for most applications.

I foolishly assumed he had one as he claimed.

** He does: " I have an audio amp based on the LM3886... "

My comments about the necessity of regulation still stand, however. There
is
no reason what so ever that these amps will not work perfectly well with a
peak rectified, capacitor input voltage of +/- 30 volts under full load.
That would be over 50 watts per channel into 8 ohms.

** Bad math.

The stated DC supply for 50 watt output at 8 ohms is +/- 35 volts minimum -
with no allowance for ripple voltage minima. This for 0.1% THD or just on
the clipping point.

No regulators required
and a 17 volt over voltage margin on the raw voltage, each side.

** Using the REAL figures paints a different picture:

The DC supply must not exceed +/- 42 volts under no load and highest
expected AC voltage - or the LM3886 can be expected to fail.

They are in fact NOTORIOUS for doing this !!!!

Makes the nominal, no load supply +/- 40 volts DC.

To get +/- 35 volts under full load, including ripple minima, means the
transformer must have better than 10 %regulation with a rectifier/capacitor
load combined with a ripple voltage on the DC of less than 2 volts p-p.

For a stereo pair of LM3886s, this equates to using a 400 - 500 VA tranny
with 10,000 uF caps on each rail.

Opting for 40 watts per IC is far more sensible.


...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Bob Eld"
"Eeysore"

Since the LM3886 will sustain +/-47V (obviously allow for AC line
overvoltage> on top of this) where's his problem ?
http://www.national.com/mpf/LM/LM3886.html


I agree.

** Foolish move to agree with any of the utter rubbish posted by the
Stevenson TROLL.

The fallacy of arguing from a position of 100% ignorance is his only talent.

I didn't mean that he should necessarily design the amp, maybe copy
one. But switching regulators are no simple hobby task either. Yes,
looking
at the 94 volt range of the 3886 does beg the question, where is his
problem?

** Read the specs more closely - the max safe supply voltage is actually
84 volts.

The 94 volt ( no drive) figure is meaningless for most applications.

I foolishly assumed he had one as he claimed.

** He does: " I have an audio amp based on the LM3886... "

My comments about the necessity of regulation still stand, however. There
is
no reason what so ever that these amps will not work perfectly well with a
peak rectified, capacitor input voltage of +/- 30 volts under full load.
That would be over 50 watts per channel into 8 ohms.

** Bad math.

The stated DC supply for 50 watt output at 8 ohms is +/- 35 volts minimum -
with no allowance for ripple voltage minima. This for 0.1% THD or just on
the clipping point.

No regulators required
and a 17 volt over voltage margin on the raw voltage, each side.

** Using the REAL figures paints a different picture:

The DC supply must not exceed +/- 42 volts under no load and highest
expected AC voltage - or the LM3886 can be expected to fail.

They are in fact NOTORIOUS for doing this !!!!

Makes the nominal, no load supply +/- 40 volts DC.

To get +/- 35 volts under full load, including ripple minima, means the
transformer must have better than 10 %regulation with a rectifier/capacitor
load combined with a ripple voltage on the DC of less than 2 volts p-p.

For a stereo pair of LM3886s, this equates to using a 400 - 500 VA tranny
with 10,000 uF caps on each rail.

Opting for 40 watts per IC is far more sensible.


...... Phil