likearock

...and flyer!

You have some serious problems with that. Think of a wingsuit as mini-parachute, that's how its designed. As I'm sure you know, an open parachute in wind tunnel is a huge problem. As far as securing it to the floor, even if that could be done, how would that even be useful in learning to operate the wingsuit? You need to be able to react to the wind and see how the wing responds. Maybe, instead of a vertical wind tunnel, you had more of a horizontal one?

Does your DZ.com name indicate the kind of flying you like to do (freefly)? If so, I'd recommend Eloy over Perris. Most people would be challenged to do static head down flying in Perris - Eloy has significantly more powerful fans and is much better for learning the freefly positions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA7Uw60bnBc

everyone is entitled to their opinion ofcourse but that doesnt mean they are an expert or know what they are talking about necessarily. when compared to every other Ifly facility, he is dead on target. Orlando was great.... 10 years ago.... Now? its in dire need of a refit. It really depends on the type of flying you want to do. For belly or back, Orlando is fine. If you want to do sit or head-down and you're not light and floaty, you'll want a tunnel with more HP.

Not true!

Actually, I suspect the choice was not his. As head of the Restaurant Association (whatever it was called) and with the suits against it, not him personally, their counsel is making the decisions to limit exposure. Well, now I know you're just grasping at straws. Those allegations go to the core of his reputation and his standing within the community. I would think that if they were false, he would absolutely want to fight them unless he was legally enjoined in some way not to do so. And if that were true, i.e. that Cain really felt these charges were completely false and he wanted to fight them but the big bad Restaurant Association forced him into accepting the settlement, why wouldn't he be saying just that? It would be a huge mitigation of the PR mess he's found himself in - he should be starting every statement he's ever made on the subject with that claim. No, I suspect that he's not saying it because it isn't true and he would get caught in a lie. Well, who do you think was named as the defendant in these charges? And who do you think paid? That is who makes the call. It doesn't matter who is defendant and who paid, it was Cain's reputation and good name that is at stake. If the claims were as baseless as some seem to believe, I would expect him at least to make some action to show he was wronged - why not a counter-suit for example? And again, I repeat, if he had really wanted to fight the two allegations, why did he never say just that? There's a difference where a man's good name is at stake. Or don't you see that?

Actually, I suspect the choice was not his. As head of the Restaurant Association (whatever it was called) and with the suits against it, not him personally, their counsel is making the decisions to limit exposure. Well, now I know you're just grasping at straws. Those allegations go to the core of his reputation and his standing within the community. I would think that if they were false, he would absolutely want to fight them unless he was legally enjoined in some way not to do so. And if that were true, i.e. that Cain really felt these charges were completely false and he wanted to fight them but the big bad Restaurant Association forced him into accepting the settlement, why wouldn't he be saying just that? It would be a huge mitigation of the PR mess he's found himself in - he should be starting every statement he's ever made on the subject with that claim. No, I suspect that he's not saying it because it isn't true and he would get caught in a lie.

more a higher standard for evidence. 3 or 4 unsubstantiated accusations do not make a trend. Nor do settlements, given the propensity for lawyers to do a cost/benefit decision. Of course the two settlements are evidence. Granted not legal evidence and certainly not conclusive evidence, but they are evidence just the same for the prospective voter. The final decision on whether to grant those settlements was clearly Cain's. And given his uncompromising stance on practically everything, it's very difficult to accept a scenario where he wouldn't fight it out if both of those claims were without merit.

All I can say is you have a high tolerance for coincidence.

Godwin - you lose.

Amazing video, BTW.

Yeah, I found this also - the site is actually used as a URL shortener by Youtube. Sorry I sent out the false alarm but phishing is a real problem.

Any reason why this URL's server is youtu.be rather than youtube? Asking because that's usually a way to get user's to go to a scam site. Perhaps this account has been hacked?

My god, a green wind tunnel - that would be something!

He would need the income to pay the judgement against him, which would ultimately just make Sarah rich, and the author disgraced - a win for Sarah! Like I said - not gonna happen. You can take that to the bank!

Update:Sarah Palin Threatens to Sue ‘Rogue’ Book Publisher "Sarah Palin’s family attorney John Tiemessen has written a letter to Maya Mavjee, the publisher of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, that Palin may sue her, the company, and the book’s author Joe McGinniss “for knowingly publishing false statements” in his book released last week, “The Rogue,” ABC News has learned..."Full story: ABC News Never gonna happen. Would be a media mega-circus. Could you imagine the weeks of cable news coverage, discussing the facts of the case (drug use, sexual infidelity)? I wouldn't think Sarah wants that (but then again, you never know). On the other hand, you can bet McGinniss is crossing his fingers that she does sue him. It would put his book sales through the roof.

I have no clue what you're trying to show here.. Sorry man... Of course e < E-E' . There are so much inefficiencies in such a system that the energy created will be much smaller than the energy powering the system. Yes, but the energy "powering the system" is E' (not E'-E). So all you're really saying with your statement is that e < E', which as I said before is not the relevant question. Let's go with that then. Say it takes 500 kWh per day to power a wind tunnel. By your calculation, the electricity that could be produced from a generator inserted into that wind would take a hit of 30%, bring it to 350 kWh. So the question is now, how much additional electricity would the wind tunnel require to run that generator? It's conceivable (at least to me) that it could require something less than an additional 350 kWh to keep the generator going. For instance, if it took an extra 200 kWh, that would bring bring the total (E') to 700 kWh. Is it so difficult to believe that air infused with 700 kWh of energy can be converted to 350 kWh? And if that were the case, you're looking at a net gain of 150 kWh per day.

That's the very definition of a perpetual motion machine. Forcing me to dust off my algebra, will you? Okay, here it is. Let E = the energy required to power the wind tunnel (without an auxiliary generator) Let E' = the energy required to power the wind tunnel with the generator. Let e = the energy created by the generator when it is inserted into the wind stream. Conservation of energy tells us the following: e < E < E' Violation of the above would be equivalent to allowing for a perpetual motion machine. As far as I know, it does not tell us that e < E'-E But I could be wrong.

you're mocking them aren't you? any idea that takes energy from the flow requires that energy to be replaced (more power consumption) - it's not 'free' from the system Agreed - to argue otherwise would allow the possiblity of a "perpetual motion" machine where all our energy problems are solved. I'm not saying that. Again agree. Clearly the motors will have to draw extra power to be able to do the double duty of power the wind tunnel and the generator at the same time. Just as obviously, the amount of electricity that could be regenerated in this example will necessarily be less that original electricity powering the tunnel motors. However, that's not the important comparison here. The key question is whether or not the difference in power consumption (between having a generator and no generator) is greater or less than the power that is regenerated. That's what would determine whether or not such an idea could be profitable. I admit I don't know enough physics to give this a deep analysis. But I do know that the consideration of whether or not using an electrical generator in that way could be profitable does not require you to disbelieve any the laws regarding conservation of energy.

How about just using the airflow to power a generator and create electricity that could then be directly used by the wind tunnel? Cut down on those huge electric bills.

What you're suggesting is to maintain an electronic blacklist for all skydivers that have been judged to be "unsafe" by some standard. Ultimately, that's the only way DZO enforcement would have any teeth since without it, the problem jumper can simply go DZ shopping (as was the case in this incident). Of course, implementation of that kind of policy opens up a whole set of other questions. Who puts the names on the list? What is the criteria? What's the policy for getting your name removed from the list? Are we as a community really okay with that kind of measure?

Smells like bullshit. Lets see what a little checking reveals... Yep. It's bullshit. The HPV vaccine Gardasil was approved in june 2006 (and CDC recommends its use), Perry added it to the required vacination list in february 2007

Which is why they won't do it again. Remember, the VP is picked by the candidate, not the primary voters. I think they'll frame it as a states' rights issue. Romney will argue (as he's already done) that was was right for Mass. may not be right for Miss. and federal.gov shouldn't have a say in the matter. He's also starting to work in some wiggle room between himself and Romneycare because he knows how tough it will be to get over that hump. I think the GOP base will fall in line. Wishful thinking. The mandate is what kills him. Most GOPers don't think states should have any more authority to force you to buy health insurance than should the federal government.

Kind of the tunnel equivalent of a "tandem factory".