aonsquared

I use it as a high-precision cutter for many materials, not just steel. But CO2 is good enough that it was a contender for the Boeing YAL-1 Tactical Laser for shooting down ballistic missiles. So yes, I'll take you up on that offer. Yes, water vapour does absorb more energy than CO2, but that's not the point - if we had 2 identical earths, one with normal prehistoric CO2 concentration and one with 400ppm as we do now, then expose them to the same amount of sunlight, the one with more CO2 will heat up more. We can do this as an experiment with 2 identical vacuum containers with say 10000 ppm water vapour. now let's add 400 ppm CO2 to one and 100ppm to the other, then expose both to sunlight. Sure, both containers will heat up mostly due to water vapor, but the one with more CO2 will heat up more. It's a high-school level experiment. To simplify even further, imagine microwaving a cold meal - sometimes you take it out and the middle is still freezing cold. But one bit of it is blazing hot, and if you take the average temperature, it's hotter than before you put it in the microwave. And if you mix it then it will be warmer. It's basic thermodynamics. Now the earth is one huge container and it will take time to fully mix the heat. But by then it could be too late - we need to remove the bit that's absorbing the extra energy (CO2) as soon as we can.

Well you did get the laser part right - I'm talking about a 120 Watt CO2 laser that I use regularly for work. It will take off wrinkles and pretty much the rest of your face. With long enough exposure, it will punch a hole through you (it's only 120 watts, so will take a minute or so). It will actually make your eyeballs explode too. You see, CO2 has this property that it absorbs energy into its molecular bonds, then re-transmits it in the 10-micron wavelength. This property is useful for cutting through steel, but it's also the exact thing that's causing climate change. Now since the mathematics is too hard even for supercomputers to simulate properly, the exact effect of the energy is hard to predict, but we are effectively pumping Gigawatts, if not Terawatts of extra energy into the atmosphere via CO2. So, shall we arrange a time and date for your "facial"?

You avoided answering my question on standing in front of a glass tube filled with CO2 in the other thread. It's almost as if you don't know what was going to happen with such a "harmless" gas. Are you chickening out? For further clarification, the gas is not pressurised, it will not leave the glass tube and will not be inhaled or otherwise come into contact with you. You just need to stand in front of it while it is switched on.

I'm serious. Are you in?

If I put some CO2 in a discharge tube, add some optics and mirrors, will you stand in front of it while I turn it on? After all CO2 is nothing to be afraid of.

How is this qualitatively different from a large number of neurons, connected in a certain way, producing results when certain neurons change their states? "Consciousness" is simply an abstract concept that in essence describes the physical states of these neurons.

A computer hard drive with a computer program weighs exactly the same as one that is empty. Where does the program exist? It exists in information. Our mind exists in the firing patterns of our neurons. I highly suggest looking up Information Theory to answer some of your questions.

I would very much like to know where you get fuel that weighs 0kg...now that would be a bigger game-changer than electric In any case, here are the official weights from the Cessna website for the Turbo Stationair HD Cargo: Maximum Ramp Weight 3,806 lb (1,726 kg) Maximum Takeoff Weight 3,789 lb (1,719 kg) Maximum Landing Weight 3,600 lb (1,633 kg) Usable Fuel Weight 522 lb (237 kg) Usable Fuel Volume 87 gal (329 l) Basic Empty Weight 2,212 lb (1,003 kg) Useful Load 1,594 lb (723 kg) Maximum Payload 1,388 lb (630 kg) Full Fuel Payload 1,072 lb (486 kg) You won't really lose that much payload with electric, and they're just getting started

First is I would recommend wearing foam ear plugs to protect your hearing - I've just started doing this and to my amazement I could actually hear conversations in the plane over the earplugs, yet the noise level was reduced to a comfortable level. I also had no problem hearing my audible. I'm sure any would do fine, although I am a bit biased, as I do work for the company who makes the Brilliant Pebbles (which the volume could be set to 255 different levels so you should be able to get exactly the alarm volume you need) Most other audibles I've seen can control the volume as well (the NeoXS had 4 different volume settings if I remember correctly).

Electric aircraft can also have something like regenerative braking for cars, and recover some energy on the descent, reducing the recharge needed between lifts and reducing total fuel cost even further. Regular engines can't do that. The charging time is still a problem for quick turnarounds common in skydiving, but battery tech is improving quickly.

Actually, a Flysight would probably be even better, as it uses GPS and is not dependent on barometric pressure.

AON2 X2 For how much the AresII is, you might as well get GPS and a colour screen (disclaimer: yes I do work for AON2!)

Sorry But my suggestion is to look at flow separation - it happens really early on wingsuits, creating lots of extra drag and wasting that extra surface area. Somehow find a way to keep that boundary layer attached, and you can cut drag way down. Keep lift the same, and your L/D will shoot up :)

We'll have to agree to disagree on the 'unnecessary' bit - if it's not useful to you, so be it. I shall now get back to my own work and stop arguing Carry on!

So given accelerations in X and Y, resolve the forces to tangent (D) and perpendicular (L) to the velocity vector in a uniform gravitational field, g. Yes, you get: L/D = (gVx-AyVx+AxVy)/(gV_y-VyAy-VxAx) It's high school level mathematics. How does this invalidate standard aerodynamic equations? How is this revolutionary? What other things do they say? That was Yuri's claim. That's why I kept asking if his equations gave anything more than L/D, which he never answered. When I said they were wrong, it was because my definition of "flight" did not include completely ballistic trajectories, which this L/D includes (I still think it's silly, but it's just a matter of convention). So at least for this L/D equation, I take my statement back. (Yuri will of course start dancing and try to include me in his "religion", no thanks ) So in short, the "WSE" is a way to calculate accelerations given velocities, then resolving them in the "lift-drag" coordinate system. Not wrong, but not new, nor novel or groundbreaking. But since Yuri's stopped insulting standard aerodynamics, I see no reason to keep arguing

You wish. Excellent strategy though, just keep spamming the thread, and avoid engaging experts who can actually see through your claims. People will believe you eventually

You know what they say about those who shout the loudest...

You're not going to get any straight answers from him, he'll just post more photos of his vane and some unrelated rants. Yuri's conclusion for the max L/D ratio is not because of his equations, he's actually concluded that the human planform will have a lower limit to drag which will limit L/D. Which is quite reasonable overall, except that he set that lower limit to one of his graphs and declared that it's impossible to go lower He uses neither Bernoulli's equation nor Euler's formula - it's way more basic than that. Yuri, besides L/D ratio, do your equations say anything else useful?

What else does the "WSE" give besides L/D? How do the "WSE" invalidate standard aerodynamic equations? There's a lot of noise in this thread, and it's definitely *not* coming from LeeroyJenkins.

We need to clarify terms. With proving them wrong, do you mean mathematical proof, or physical proof? Ever heard of proof by contradiction?

According to your earlier posts, do your wingsuit equations assume that either: a) L points perpendicular to the trajectory curve? Or b) L always points "up" opposite the gravity vector? Or c) perpendicular to the wingsuiter? Just trying to establish your conventions.

Platypii, I think you need to step back here and look at your logical reasoning. You made a hypothesis (L/D ratio is roughly constant on this flight), then measured ground Vx and Vy through GPS. Then critically, without measuring lift nor drag nor its ratio with any other method, you say that since the L/D calculated from yuri's equations looks like your hypothesis, then it must be correct. You looked at glide ratio varying wildly and stayed on this train of thought: "it doesn't match my hypothesis, so it must be wrong". (and yes, instantaneous GR is definitely not a sensible aerodynamic measure, but instantaneous GR being wrong doesn't automatically mean yuri's equations are correct) But why not use any number that stays roughly constant? I can multiply air density by 2.44 and tell you it's L/D ratio for your flight, and it would match your hypothesis better than the GR data, but there would be no logic behind it. To properly prove something, it needs to be able to make predictions that are independently verifiable, and not just because it "looks" right.

Thanks for the plot. Now it's a bit clearer. First off - instantaneous glide ratio is not a measure of L/D ratio and should not be. In the flat part of a flare (vertical speed = 0 for a fraction of a second) then instantaneous glide ratio would be infinity. However average glide ratio over the entire flight can give an indication of total L/D ratio. So if you integrate the area under the glide ratio curve then average over the interval, you should get to a similar value. You still need PDOP values though, as no instrument is perfectly accurate even with filtering. And you need to post filtering details too...science is difficult, but it does pay off when done properly and without taking shortcuts

It's a bit unfair to say that glide ratio varies massively without posting details of what instrument you used to measure glide ratio. If it's GPS, please post how the PDOP varied throughout the flight. Same for the red line please - what instrument was used to measure it? The linear steady decrease indicates a roughly constant vertical (and thus horizontal) speed.

Also, that doesn't match what you show on the graph. Red line shows a steady, linear decrease in altitude vs. time, which implies constant vertical speed. Is the green line from the GPS? Could you also include PDOP (position dilution of precision) in the graph so we can see how accurate it was? With high (bad) PDOP values a GPS can show hundreds of m/s speed while the receiver is not moving.