• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

  • Country

    United States

Community Reputation

45 Neutral

About nwt

  • Birthday June 21

Social Media


  • Container Other
    Javelin J-4
  • Main Canopy Size
  • Main Canopy Other
  • Reserve Canopy Size
  • Reserve Canopy Other
  • AAD
    Vigil 2

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Champaign Urbana Skydiving Club
  • License
  • License Number
  • Licensing Organization
  • Number of Jumps
  • Tunnel Hours
  • Years in Sport
  • First Choice Discipline
    4-way FS
  • First Choice Discipline Jump Total
  • Freefall Photographer

Ratings and Rigging

  • USPA Coach
  • Pro Rating
  • Wingsuit Instructor

Recent Profile Visitors

464 profile views
  1. I'll concede that I misunderstood this point. I don't have much of an understanding of what the efficiency gains really are at 100% WOT or at 94% WOT compared to a typical cruise setting, but I can give the idea the benefit of the doubt. The idea overall is so far beyond what makes sense that these small details won't make the difference. I understand what you mean here. My point is that you can turn these knobs around however you want, and the engineering will never work out. As you change these parameters, you're not seeing the penalties of cost, weight, complexity, etc. Correct. And once you choose the amount of excess power that "makes sense" and try to design the entire system, you'll realize you're ending up with something worth less than the sum of its parts. The overlying problem is this thread has seemingly changed from a place where we try to apply math and engineering to come up with things that might actually work, to a place where we just spout out things that sound good. Yeah, harvesting wasted energy during descent to provide power for a go-around sounds great! Let's not bother with silly little details like... How much power will be recovered, how much is required for a go-around, how much it costs, and how much it weighs. The burden of evidence is on the person proposing the idea, and none has been presented.
  2. It comes across as absurd, but it's important to appreciate that the accused is entitled to a trial, and their counsel is obligated to make the strongest case possible. If this is the best they can come up with, that's a reflection on how weak their case is and not necessarily on the competence of their counsel or some kind of problem with our system. If it sounds absurd to you, it probably does to the jury as well. It's okay.
  3. nwt


    That's why this mRNA technology is so promising--vaccines could be tailor-made to the individual.
  4. I'm not straw-manning and I'm not saying logically you must have 100% combustion. I'm saying (1) the numbers will never work out, and (2) you absolutely must be able to go around, climb to avoid weather/traffic, etc. Cruising at 75-80% power already negates the original idea, which was to cruise at 100% power where engines are most efficient. Where did your numbers come from? Did you just make up numbers that you thought sounded good? We can make any idea sound good if there's no requirement for the engineering to be based in reality.
  5. More challenging for sure, but it seems highly plausible at this point.
  6. I can't take him seriously anymore. The idea of a combusting engine running WOT at cruise, plus a few minutes of extra power by battery just isn't even near the ballpark of what makes sense, for the reasons I've stated. If you have enough extra power from the combusting engine to recharge the batteries, then You could just use that power to climb directly instead of losing energy in conversion, adding an entire second motor, prop, generator, etc. Now in cruise you're either burning extra fuel to charge the batteries, or you're running substantially less than WOT, both scenarios defeating the entire point of the idea And apparently I've contradicted myself by agreeing a magic free power boost with no engineering tradeoffs would be nice to have? That's an obvious troll, and I think he knows how absurd the whole idea is. The practicality of hybrid cars is debatable. Giving them the benefit of the doubt: What's practical on the ground is often not practical in the sky. Right, it wouldn't literally be a perpetual motion machine, but it's closer to that than it is to reality. The reason you think this idea makes sense is that you're falling for the same mental traps that lead people to chase perpetual motion. You want to convert energy forms multiple times without any understanding of the cost, and for no good reason because the power was perfectly usable in its original state in the combusting engine with propeller. If you come to understand this, I expect you will understand the analogy to perpetual motion. Generator-motor hybrid may be viable today for some applications--batteries are not required. I actually saw a pretty compelling presentation on this topic from a company developing such a power system and I've posted about it before. And no, Bill, I'm not contradicting myself by saying this.
  7. nwt


    And most of them failed. Most of these "blank check" efforts resulted in zero profit. You. Have. Absolutely. No. Idea. What. The. Fuck. You. Are. Talking. About. To such a degree that it's insulting to those who do. The funny thing about a pandemic response is that the better you do, the fewer people die. Somehow some people are mentally challenged in a particular way that makes them see this backwards. Congratulations for knowing what a cardiologist does--you get a gold star! Sadly, you don't seem to know what news is. They are coming. This is actually really exciting and shows a lot of promise in many areas including cancer treatment: https://molecular-cancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12943-021-01335-5 It literally just came out, have some patience lol This is actually really funny. Damn those single-celled organisms for not figuring out how to intelligently manipulate their own mRNA! You really are special.
  8. Right--you seem unable to learn.
  9. That doesn't support your claims. We've been over this.
  10. According to what reference?
  11. I've never heard of it but it looks interesting. Thanks!
  12. Depending on what you mean by "a tad", maybe. And you would lose all of the alleged advantages of this nonsense. Couldn't have said it better myself!
  13. My agenda is that as a Medical Doctor, I actually understand all the words being used. I had no preconceptions one way or the other before seeing the evidence, which all supports the same conclusion.