• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Everything posted by The111

  1. Maybe some people do, but in general that is not what a minimum jump requirement is intended for. And discrediting it as such relies on a not entirely honest accusation. A minimum jump requirement is just that: a minimum. It does not, alone, determine "suitability." It's a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.
  2. Maybe analogy doesn't mean identical in every sense.
  3. You have a burble no matter what orientation you're flying in, and the PC is always going to go in the direction of that burble, because physics.
  4. Hey Francis, good to hear from you! Nice job on the cross country bike ride, that's pretty cool. I think a lot of us post less on these days because we've been assimilated by Facebook. I don't jump enough lately, but I haven't given it up either. In addition to the other names posted... Sean Horton aka Monkey still jumps in NorCal which is also home to me now. Taya runs a wingsuit school in SoCal and has organized bigways in 2012 and 2015, you can find my photos from them at these links: 2012 (100-way) 2015 (61-way) Mark, Craig, and Norman all shot these events too, just like 2009. :-)
  5. Which fact specifically is wrong? What you post is correct, but it is not in conflict with the OP. Facts: The crowd booed Pence (probably many times). The cast publicly addressed Pence politely, and called for the booing to stop. Trump publicly rebuked the cast for being rude. Which fact did OP get wrong? Had Trump accused the crowd of being rude, he'd have a point. His accusation was toward the cast though. Seems he is the one mixing up his facts.
  6. This guy agrees with OP. I mean, if we're talking about today. If we're talking about 2 weeks ago, he was getting ready to protest with his musket. Trump himself does not agree. Well, actually worse IMO, comparing the idea of a revolution to a protest. Admittedly they're both just full of hot air and wouldn't have followed through, if I had to guess. But their words still do cause real damage. There would be protests today no matter who won, and yes: they'd be equally ineffective in either case. And if things had been reversed, I think it likely the protesting would have included Trump himself (based on his past behavior in this election and comments like the one I linked above). I'm glad Hillary at least conceded gracefully (though I'll admit a small part of me wondered if it would go that way).
  7. I think Trump's comments were more about not respecting the actual vote count, i.e. "the election is rigged." The protesters today do respect the count (they acknowledge he won), just not the man who the count was in favor of (they "refuse" him as a leader, which of course is not going to amount to anything). But, I agree that the protests aren't really helping anybody. However, more amusing by far is that just 4 years ago, Trump asked for a revolution (which, taken literally, is immensely worse than a protest) over the same exact conditions that led to his win this year.
  8. Semantic nitpick: if your vote isn't counted, is it actually a vote? Maybe more accurate to say "I get to make it known who I want to vote for." I do agree with your thoughts on Musk though.
  9. Great minds think alike. Everything is rigged. IMO: I was also amused by HRC when DT brought up the evidence from Wikileaks her response was to accuse the Russians of trying to influence the election. She can't deny what her campaign staff and the Democratic Party has done. The emails and the videos, Project Veritas, are out there. Agreed, I also enjoy peanut butter.
  10. Great minds think alike. Everything is rigged.
  11. Ok, and what about in 1000 years? How about 5000? Do we just say "fuck those future people, they don't exist yet?" (and at this rate, they might not ever)
  12. Both words have existed for a century.
  13. Fundamental understanding of thermodynamics is not new, despite the fact that many people today still lack it.
  14. When blaming the victim is such a common response (see the ridiculous logic above), the result is that victims are often hesitant to take action immediately. By participating in victim blame, you contribute to this cycle, so you've got that going for you.
  15. Very nice. Have you listened to Peter Mulvey before? Your style reminds me a lot of his. He is so underappreciated for how talented he is. He's been performing for decades and yet still I was recently able to see him perform in a room full of no more than 40 people, in one of USA's biggest cities.
  16. Your video mentions that you're already measuring static pressure outside of the wingsuit. Do you have a picture of how you have this set up?
  17. Sorry if it sounds like I'm shitting on your idea, but I'm just trying to connect it to my observations. I'd recommend making all of your measurements in the free airstream. If you really want to keep trying with internal measurements, do it with a lot of different suits (e.g. small suits, big suits, different manufacturers, tri-wings, mono-wings), and compare to data from GPS and purely external measurements. I'd wager a large amount of money you'll find the purely external measurements have some strong correlation to GPS data, and your conclusions drawn from internal data will vary widely (and if not, you need to include some Phantom 1's in your test). The video is cool and the numbers sound reasonable, but I still think it has a lot to do with the inlet design on that suit. Come to think of it though, maybe the true number is really just an upper bound on what would be measured from poorly designed inlets (which can only let in less than the total pressure)... so if all modern suits have good inlet design (letting in close to the full total pressure) then maybe it is actually pretty close to reality in each case, and my thinking is just biased by all the badly designed suits of the past. I still think pure external would be more reliable, and user yuri_base did something with that years ago, a huge pitot setup coming off of his helmet.
  18. Look at the picture I posted. The legwing was not even inflated on one of the suits! A lot of earlier suits were like that, and I could get 3 minute flights in those suits with roughly the same glide I can get in my modern suits. Even today, Phoenix Fly suits trend toward much lower inflation pressures than Squirrel and Tony suits, and you can fly all of those suits side by side, at exactly the same speed, with very different internal pressures. Inlet design is the biggest difference in all of these suits. This isn't about how a pitot tube works. It's about what you're attempting to measure, and how/where. If you want to measure the pressure in the free airstream, you need a gauge in that free airstream. My first college degree is in Aerospace Engineering, and I earned my living for a decade designing bodies that fly in both air and space, before I moved on to a better career. I would not take your word for it, nor would I trust implications culled from "playing with CFD" when those implications directly contradict actual freefall observations. One of the things about science is that real world data (i.e. those observations) beat simulator data every time. And CFD is one of the most notoriously hard to get right simulations in existence. The math models behind CFD were numerically arrived at only after mountains of real data had been collected from dynamic airflow for decades. And those math models in turn are best applied to those same kinds of dynamic airflow (which the static air inside your wings is anything but). What you're proposing might work, but only if you calibrated your measurements for a specific suit/human/rig combo (and that calibration would need to be done using real speed data that you measured externally... at which point you already have what you need so your whole "solution" becomes unnecessary). In no way could work as a general purpose solution for any wingsuit. And as long as we're talking about science... Yes, air in a sealed volume with one open surface will push out as hard as it is getting pushed in. But that has nothing to do with the "conservation of mass and momentum" as you keep repeating. It's simply Newton's 3rd law. The things is, wingsuit models have a huge variety of inlet designs, which among other dissimilarities, are located at different points in the airstream. Meaning that two wingsuits flying at the same speed but with different inlet locations will have very different pressures wrt to the "air outside trying to push in." And inlet size does make a difference too since for small enough inlets you get interference drag. All of this is why those two suits flying side by side will have massive differences in internal pressure.
  19. True. But that's not what I was talking about at all. You don't need to "try" to throw off the "system" because it is already broken. The internal pressure is more related to inlet size, inlet shape, inlet location, overall suit design (which plays into general orientation during flight), and flight mode than it is to airspeed (which does admittedly play in, but it takes a far smaller role compared to all those other things). Funny you mention pitot tubes, because a pitot tube is a good example of how to correctly measure airspeed. Notice where it is installed? In the free airstream. That is a place where you can measure airspeed. Not inside an inflated wingsuit. I've flown a few dozen wingsuits in the past decade. All in flocks at about the same speed. Some of those suits have practically zero internal pressure, I can collapse them without even trying. Others have so much pressure that I cannot collapse them in flight no matter how hard I try. Even after deployment, under canopy, some suits retain some internal pressure. These are not "little variations" as you suggest. These are night and day differences.
  20. Different wingsuit models have extremely different internal pressures. This is related to the design and has nothing to do with airspeed. Take a look at this pic. The Phantom has like zero pressure in the legwing. But it's going the exact same speed as the highlight pressured Vampire next to it. Hell, modern suits allow you to to vary the pressure with a zipper. You could do this while flying at a continuous speed. Internal pressure is a measure of suit rigidity and nothing else.
  21. I work about a mile from that lot (Google). There are always kites flying in it, it's even labeled on maps as "kite lot." So I guess the thing from the end of the article about a ban there never happened (though usually what I see are traction kites for mountain boards and buggies, sometimes there are traditional string kites too). I was not however around here in 1988.
  22. 2012, really?!?! We'll have to wait that long? How about 2011? Say about Sept or Oct?
  23. What is the "no Gri" referring to? (part of the record group description) No grizzly bears were harmed in the making of this record. Also, no grips.
  24. No worries, I had to sit down and rethink it all again to make sure I was not mistaken either.
  25. I would change that as follows: 1. Change 'Luke' to 'Luke jumped without a parachute' 2. Change 'made a parachute jumo' to '3 guys jumped using parachutes' 3. Change the center overlap from '3 other dudes' to '4 people made a skydive' Jerry Baumchen That's not how Venn diagrams work at all. In a Venn diagram, a circle represents set membership. If two circles intersect, it implies that something is a member of both sets. You are suggesting that I make the left circle "people who jumped without parachutes" and the right circle "people who jumped with parachutes." If I do that, then (a) the circles won't overlap at all, since it is logically impossible to be a member of both of those sets simultaneously (i.e. to both jump with and without a parachute) and (b) it would not illustrate the point I was trying to make, which was that everybody made a skydive, despite not everybody making a parachute jump. My diagram does make your final point: all 4 people made a skydive (this is why all 4 people are inside the left circle).