darkvapor

It depends on the processor and the speed its running at. I have an older Athlon 1.4 Thunderbird that runs at 45°C (113°F) (edited to add: this is a fan cooled system). They say you can run processors up to about 65-70°C before they will be physically damaged.

Whatever you end up doing tonight, it's going to be a lot better than what I'm doing.. Nothing like stuck working night shift on a Friday night. Then going to the dropzone on little to no sleep.. Just finished a 52 hour work week... and will probably do another one next week. Working in a wind tunnel has its fun side.. hours are not one of them..

I wanted people to post what information they used to make their decisions. Your post is very much appreciated. Anecdotal support is very valid here. That was pretty much the basis of my poll. Has there been a case of an accidental (above 750ft) Cypres deployment in a CRW situation? I think your post has shown that being incapacitated on exits can happen. I think that has been shown last month with that emergency exit Cypres save. What I didn't want this thread to be about is someone listing the reasons what can happen. I think most of us here know what CAN happen. What I wanted this discussion to be about is whether using an AAD outweighs the risk. Here, I think anecdotal evidence is going to be most important. While Foster's death is a tragedy, I think we need to use information like that to try to mitigate the risks as much as possible. Historically, I think the Cypres has proved itself to be reliable enough to use in CRW. But then again, CRW has been fairly safe even without the need for a Cypres. On a slight side track, do you know if Foster was using a helmet? Do you think that would have saved him? To me, it seems the majority of Crw dogs don't use a helmet. And using a helmet is going to be cheaper insurance than a getting a Cypres. I use one because I'm still a beginner in both skydiving and CRW. That, and the local crw-gods use them, setting a good example for me.

You want canopy manufacturers to rate their products objectively? Not going to happen. Someone like Atair will tell you that a HP elliptical at 1.4 is fine for a "beginner". While PD rates most of their canopies at intermediate for a 1.0 wingloading. If you try to use some kind of mathematical formula, thats not going to work. Not sure if you saw all the confusion around trying to measure the ellipticity of a canopy. You get some canopies that are regarded as moderate being rated higher than a Stilleto. And what manufacturer really wants to call their canopy advanced and lose all their sales to people who would otherwise buy them? How about we try something that works?! How about TRAINING!? Start from the bottom up. Make the AFF program more canopy intensive. When I went thru AFF, my canopy instruction was primarily just being told "go play with it and see how it flies". Sure.. they told us about half brake turns, and different approaches. But thats about it. Let's fix the problem at the source instead of trying to impose restrictions until your blue in the face. Make a canopy control course mandatory before B or C license. (Would be more appropriate at a B now). And more importantly, make those courses available. I've seen some dropzones that haven't had one available for several years. Like I said in another thread, there are two important things that have been said in other discussions, but not this one: 1) Know your own limitations and 2) even a canopy at 1:1 can kill you. First off, this is a self-regulated sport. We need to keep it that way. We don't need so many lawsuits and blacklists that we drive everything underground or out of business. What next? Background checks and 10 day waiting periods? We need education and self-responsibility. Not regulations and lawsuits.

Right. Like I said, I know the reasons why most people don't. I know that CReW dogs die from too much out, not from not enough. However, the chances are there. Yes, the chances of getting incapacitated on exit are slim. The chances of being unable to pull your reserve after a cutaway are also slim. Yes, there is a chance of having a cypres misfire. And it's an individual decision which out-weighs which. I'm just curious what proportion of people picked what option.

http://h20015.www2.hp.com/en/softwareCategory.jhtml?lc=en&pagetype=software&prodId=dj820cx&sw_lang=en&cc=us

Just curious what proportion of CRW dogs regularly use a Cypres. I know the arguments for and against it for use in CRW, so I don't think there needs to be a discussion about that. I turn on my Cypres when doing CRW since I've been using my regular freefall rig. However, I think I'm about to put together a dedicated CRW rig, and it won't have a Cypres. Let's also try to keep this poll/discussion to dedicated crw jumps, not freefall jumps with a few crw points turned at the end.

Make sure you get a good briefing from a CRW dog or a canopy control instructor first. You might not have the intention of contact, but shit happens. You need to know how to approach another canopy. (The closure rate on two canopies heading into each other is deadly). You need to know what to do in case you get wrapped or entangled. You need to get briefed on how to use different control inputs to successfully fly next to another canopy. Thats just the beginning. Let us not forget what happened in Dallas late last year when two people tried to do "no contact" crw.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results;search_type=AND;search_forum_type=all;search_user_username=;search_fields=sb;search_forum_id=;search_time=;search_string=7%209%20cell;search_forum=all;page=1;sb=post_time;so=DESC;mh=35; This topic has been covered extensively, including a thread or two within the last week or so. Use the link above to read some of the results of a search that should give you a good background. "7 CELL or 9 CELL for NOVICE'S first Main? ": http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=684525;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Well, most birds don't spend much time above a thousand feet. For a bird, it really doesn't serve any purpose to climb up to several thousand feet, unless they are migrating or something. Its probably better for them to catch currents and updrafts closer to the surface.

I was a pretty dedicated Farker several years ago when Fark.com was still a "small" site. The quality of individuals that post and visit that site has gotten exponentially worse over the years. There hasn't been an educated comment made on their forums in a long time. The best thing you can do it just let it go and leave them in their ignorance.

To the top of the canopy, almost like on a non-CRW canopy. On a Lightning, there are 3 rings spaced about 1 foot apart, with the middle ring right at the middle of the canopy. I won't bore you with how the bridle is routed through them, but as your pilot chute inflates, pulls on the bridle, your container opens and the canopy is extracted by the rings at the top. Just as it is on a regular chute. The bridle/PC and tail pocket are independent of each other.

yea.. It's bad taste by RealTV to show it. It was even a worse decision by the parents to "make" their kid do that. From the clip, it looks like the parent's were the ones pushing the kid to do it. Perhaps not "pushing" him, but very much encouraging. There are many young people (under 18) who want to skydive. It is the parents responsibility to understand that their kids are not able to make that decision for themselves. It is their responsibility to make the decisions for their kids until the kids are legally old enough to do so for themselves. There are many parents out there that do not understand their responsibilities. They are driven by some need to have their kids known for some feat. For those that remember, Jessica Dubroff, that is a similar situation. A 7 year old does NOT need to be flying a plane. She does not understand her actions and their consequences. She has not developed the experience, the motor skills, and thought process that make for a good pilot. Unfortunately, that situation had the same outcome as this one.

Shockingly pathetic. I also thought that it was against RealTV's policy to put clips on that resulted in the death of an individual. Maybe it was in the beginning.. but I guess they thought showing more deaths would boost ratings.. Just flipping channels a few minutes ago, and came across RealTV. I watched a clip of an attempt by a Colombian 13 year old to be the youngest skydiver ever. ** They showed the kid geared up, getting "instructions" and then show the film of him leaving the plane (from the ground) all the way to impact. They try to justify that clip by saying they wanted to keep people from trying stunts like that. But its just some more of their sensationalistic bullshit. And I'm not just pissed because they showed a death related to skydiving, but just because they decided it would be a good television to show a death. And the fact that it was a Colombian and not an American, that makes it even easier to show.. right? What next? Murders and suicides? edited: youngest skydiver in Colombia.. not in the world..

Some more very good reading material: http://www.skygod.com/quotes/misc.html http://www.skygod.com/quotes/lastwords.html That last words page is very powerful. It's sort of eerie reading about incidents which inevitably resulted in a loss of life, but at the same time, they are so powerful and sometimes even inspiring.

So, how many jumps did you make in your first year in the sport?

Well, modern parachute material is not affected by water. Pond swoopers get their canopies wet often. I'd be careful with using detergents. You wouldn't want to use anything abrasive or harsh that would deteriorate the material. You would also have to worry about shrinkage. [who here DOESN'T worry about shrinkage]. Some tape material used on canopies can shrink unevenly when drying, which causes some obvious problems. Your best bet is just to spot clean some spots with a soft wet cloth. If the canopy really looks bad, then I might continue looking for advice from someone who has successfully cleaned a canopy. If the canopy doesn't look that bad, then I wouldn't worry about it.

I'm not saying it wasn't covered. But it was a 15 second clip on headline news, and got its fair share of an average news story. This Arnold thing has been on the front page of every online news source tonight. That's going too far. Your saying that what Arnold said (or rather, the media coverage of it) deserves that same kind of attention? I know this will all die down by Friday night, but it shouldn't be a topic of discussion to begin with.

Right, an easily misconstrued quote that can be taken out of context and used against someone. I'm saying that is completely the case here. That's what makes this story go to press. It doesn't matter how Arnold meant it. But these journalists know EXACTLY how the people that are against Arnold will use it. They know how simple minded fools will understand it. They don't care about that. Are they breaking any printed journalistic ethics? Hrmm, a fine line, but probably not. They aren't lying. You aren't lying. But they are using something that doesn't mean anything, and turning it into the biggest scandal of the month. Arnold didn't say anything radical, he didn't say anything racist, he didn't say anything hateful. But what these people did is take a comment he said 28 years ago and turn it against him, out of context, and made it seem like he said something so terrible that he can never hold public office. He didn't say ANYTHING offensive! Can anyone here say that they think that saying "Arnold admired Hitler" (in the context that Arnold actually said it, not that quote all by itself) is offensive? That that is some radical and minority opinion? Wasn't Hitler Time's Man of the Century? MY GOD! TIME'S EDITORS ARE NAZIS! KILL THEM ALL! edited: hrmm, can't find who won Time's "person of the century". Was it Einstein or Hitler? either way.. Hitler was a big consideration for that title... for the same reason's Arnold said he "admired" Hitler

No, I'm not saying that. However, what about some integrity, ethics, and down-right common sense? This is not a news story. This has no bearing on Arnold, today, right now, being able to run for office. What about that sleazy politician who mowed down a motorcycle and killed the rider? He had something like 10 prior traffic violations. HE IS A CRIMINAL! Someone make a big deal about that! Someone charge that guy with manslaughter and send him to jail! [Forgive me for my lack of names and more details, but this is a recent event, and OBVIOUSLY isn't getting much air time since it was recently revealed that Arnold is a Jew/Black/Mexican/Woman hating Nazi that needs to be sent to a concentration camp himself. Leave Arnold and this petty crap alone!

I think there is a HUGE difference between admiring someone, and respecting them. Same thing goes for admiration and sharing views and beliefs. It all depends on context. You say "Arnold admires Hitler!", ofcourse thats part of the sensationalistic journalism some people are looking for. Admire has many different meanings in many different contexts. There are certain qualities that I respect of world leaders, regardless of their ideologies. Hilter, Stalin, Caesar, and many other leaders had very many admirable qualities. Like their ability to lead, motivate, control, speak, plan, and especially their ability to execute their desires. Fucked up as their desires may be, they are all admirable from that standpoint. And I say that even with my own background (both Russian and Jewish descent). I am not offended by Arnold saying he admired Hitler, and neither should anyone else. Especially people who have absolutely no comprehension of the Nazis and their history (Californians are not known for their intelligence and clear thought).

I agree with that statement. However, what I don't agree with is your mentality that it is okay to be judged purely on heritage and your family's background. I don't think Arnold has shown one bit of Nazism or hate or anything that could be construed as such. Ofcourse you will argue that his statement 25 years ago proves that he is a Nazi. But that won't hold much water with just about anybody, and certainly not me. Would it be fair for me to judge everything I think about you based on what your father did? Sure.. father's and son's sometimes think alike. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes neighbors think alike. All I'm saying is, that father bullshit needs to be thrown out all together.

So your using Arnold's father against him? How would you like to be denied anything in life because of your ancestory? What if your great grandfather owned slaves? I don't know your family background, and I don't care. Like I said.. it *is* a liberal ploy to try to slander Arnold's good name. I don't think it matters one bit what Arnold's father did. We are talking about Arnold, not his father, his uncle, or his next door neighbor. First of all, are you going to tell all these historians and scholars that they are Jewish hating Nazi's because they say Hitler was a good leader? No, why would you? You have nothing to gain or lose by slandering some college professor. These liberals are looking for any piece of trash they can use against Arnold. I'm sure someone can find something YOU said that can be used against you. Your saying you never even hinted at something that could be considered racial or sexist by someone wanting to trash your name? What Arnold said is an educated opinion shared by MANY people. Liberals take it out of context and make it sensationalistic story. Look! Arnold is a Nazi! Gimme a fucking break. Thats one of the most obsurd statements I've heard. I dont think thats at all fair, and not even relevant here. Not one single bit. First of all, throw that father shit out the window. Any person with 1/8th of a brain knows that father and son are NOT a like. Using ancestory as an automatic disqualifier is something HITLER would do, not an American. Second of all, again, your down-right equating Hitler's and Arnold's ideologies. Which is absurd and not fair one bit. You want to be fair. Then stop bashing the man's good name.

Arnold is a good man. Better than these sleazy "journalists" who try to find any way possible to trash a person and their reputation. Anyone with half a brain will realize that that is taken out of context, and should not equate Arnold's and Hitler's ideologies. In fact, many scholars and historians will tell you that Hitler was an amazing leader. He was charasmatic, powerful, and had a way of motivating people that is very rare. Don't get me wrong, Hitler's ideologies were plain fucked up and he never deserved to live. However, using a comment like that against Arnold is just another ploy by these bed wetting liberals that are scared to shit that they are losing power all across America.

Thanks. Let's do that again. Frankly, I'm dissappointed in all ya'll. I thought there would be a more appreciative crowd out there willing to show it with their wallets. This place ain't cheap, so if you've never helped out before: do.