dorbie

What toilet? I see 5 jump tickets.

A cameraman died in a landing incident after filming a night tandem in the UK a year or two ago. The repercussions were huge, including a couple of advanced instructor ratings being suspended. It's all rather controversial. That's the BPA though, I think wield a much bigger stick than the USPA. It's possible nobody involved has anything to do with USPA. Give the guy a good strobe and AFAIK he's legal, first jump or not. If some guy wants to jump out of a plane let him, it's his skin. Never seen skydivers get so animated over a solo jump.

Good plan, I plan to give it another 3 months :-) I'm down 10-15 lbs but haven't been working out enough. I don't see a need to stop at this point.

P.S. keep the gloves on when you take the money.

You clean it with a brush, not your tongue, what's the problem? I'd clean it, I wouldn't take a dump in it, I think your neighbor has his priorities askew.

Asking where the energy comes from was a rhetorical device to invite critical thinking, the whole point is it doesn't come from the water (your alleged fuel remember). You responded to accurate science based criticism of pseudoscience with stunning ill founded hubris. Calling you on it is not a PA, and the ONLY reason I'm still posting is you keep trying to pretend something else happened in this thread (for example by grasping at hydrogen fuel). I'm done here. REALLY, my last post. I'm off to argue with my goldfish.

It might be easier if you learn Spanish. Try spelling your name over the phone to an American. It get's annoying when you say very clearly to a yank "A" and you hear back "E". WTF is wrong with someone when you CLEARLY say "Ayyyy" as in "hay" without the "h" and they insist they heard "E", it's not even close.

Pump?

Jim Wallace gave me my water training at Perris. Before getting wet there was lengthy and excellent instruction on everything from flotation devices and their practicality in freefall to stories of incidents, from an entire load that drowned after a bad spot to a guy who had flotation and died because he never used it (and other factors like the flight run not running parallel to the beach making the spot critical, and spending time fishing another guy out of the surf). It seemed that because of Jim's background he'd participated in or organized a lot of water jumps and seen a lot of shit. His water training was ALL about preparing for jumps near water and dealing with landing in water and by its very nature you realized the value of it. If you think you were short changed by your water training I highly recommend Jim's instruction.

Hypoxia may have already contributed to the three fatalities in the Antarctic 4-way that went in. From: http://home.online.no/~trjacob/english/diary.htm

There's a world of difference between running a car off Hydrogen and anything you posted in this thread. Running a car off water is bogus. I refer you to your first two posts in this thread, if you want to forget them the best way is to stop bumping this thread. Here's a recap using quotes, bold added for emphasis: 77r - "See video - Water Energy powers Cars " royder - "It requires energy input to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. Then you burn the two gases and they release that energy as they recombine into water. So where do you get the energy initially?" 77r - "Just because you don't understand the science behind it dosn't mean it's a hoax." This is a classic exchange, but I'd rather not go over this ad nauseum to correct your revisionism. And you're now posting crap about efficiency and being specialists. Look you're wrong, you were wrong at the start, you've been wrong throughout and despite going back and forth you're STILL wrong, many posters, including myself have pointed out exactly why this is bogus and in considerable detail. Most people posting have a better grasp of the physics involved than the charlatan making the claims, his fraud is childishly naive, as I've mentioned. Despite your belief, royder explained beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is bogus in his first post to anyone with a high school education in physics & chemistry. If you think you can wave your hands like this and generate a smoke screen you're mistaken.

Does anyone use a fid for this in skydiving? http://towmeup.com/splicing.html

Camera weight = deployment G-forces * mass Assuming you include 1 for gravity in deployment Gs It's also worth considering the 'moment' about the neck during deployment. The distance the camera is from the fulcrum (the higher it is on your head) the greater the bending load on your neck. Think of your head and helmet as a lever against your neck (the moment arm). The longer the lever the greater the bending load on your neck. Mounting your camera higher on your head is generally a bad thing unless the load is applied straight down through your neck. If you're on your belly and you take a whack the bending load your camera will add to your neck increases with (is multiplied by) the distance above your head. If you want to intuitively understand this imagine using a wrench to turn a bolt. Your vertebrae is the bolt, your neck, head & helmet is arm of the wrench and your camera under G-load is the hand pushing on the wrench. The longer the wrench the easier it is to snap the bolt. (simpified of course because everything on your head generates load under Gs). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_%28physics%29

Yup he does indeed, an admirable revision of your original position, but it was clear from his first lucid post that he had a good understanding of the science. "It requires energy input to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. " - royder. You called the science "snake oil" . Lightening up doesn't mean forgetting a poster who believed in the water powered car & criticized someone who didn't believe for "not understanding the science" despite their clear explanation of why it was bogus. On one level I think that's hillarious, but it also saddens me. Lighten up yourself, you have plenty of company (unfortunately).

If you have Tourette's syndrome, don't take a job as a weatherman: http://emuse.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/310

You posted something that was obviously pseudoscience junk, not having the knowledge to see that is your problem. You accused someone else of your own flaws when their response didn't meet with your approval. Telling someone "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " was just brazen hypocrisy. The reason you made the post is YOU were incapable of understanding the science and your remark was directed at someone who did. If you didn't backpedal, well that's an embarrassing admission. I don't expect most people to have the physics education to understand this, but if you don't, don't go tossing remarks like "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " in defense of such claims because it can make you look spectacularly foolish.

I've done that tracking, obviously you don't get the same glide slope but the principal is the same. I've exited over cloud, tracked for a gap, done a back flip as I fall through it and pulled after I exit cloud base, that kind of jump makes it worthwhile IHMO. Tracking down a cumulus is like flying past a mountain, they are really massive, Even next to them you have no idea because you're falling so fast and you have no reference for scale, you really need to see someone else framed against them at a distance and then it's breathtaking. They really are massive beyond description.

It was a lightning strike that killed the Chinese pilot who didn't make it. The survivor had frost bite, she has described her hands being encrusted in ice and her harness filled with hail. She has a heck of a story to tell. She was rendered unconscious during her ascent and recovered during a violent descent, her vario recorded the details of her ride.

Shouldn't that be Germans and not German? "Germans RW --> 156"

Which graphics card do you have? Since you mentioned graphics specifically....

No shit! Hey I've got an idea, store it safely as water!!! My waterpowered car is better than his though. You pedal it, your feet drive the cylinders to pump water from the 'fuel' tank straight out the exhaust. It is actually more efficient because you don't have to perform electrolysis or combustion and the water is emitted in liquid form rather than a hot gas, clearly a win. I sell the add on that recirculates the exhaust water back to the 'fuel' tank to save on refueling. I also sell a fuel additive called dihidrogen monoxide, it's really expensive to make though so I have to charge a lot for it. The only obstacle is all these close minded scientists getting in the way of my pure research. If only I could get access to those dopey bastards in congress I know I could convince them that I'm onto something.

I read enough, after posting pseudoscience junk you wrote "Just because you don't understand the science behind it " in response to a valid correction, yup later you backpedalled, I really have no interest in you personally but I object to anyone advocating pseudoscience and calling into question the judgement of the people who demonstrate the products of a good education; real knowledge and rational judgement. Congratulations on coming to your senses, welcome to the club.

Yup, he even mentions electrolysis in the video as how he does the separation.

Yes. Edit, well you need it for your A-license signoff. First item under "Equipment Knowledge": http://www.uspa.org/PUblications/form.pdf/A_Lic_Prof_Card_09-06.pdf

If he said catalytic electrolysis and had ice forming on his machine I might be more impressed. Of course you need some way of heating the solution or you'd end up with a tub of ice and no electrolosys, but at least you could make the case that the energy is from the surrounding air (if you could make a heat exchanger sufficient to the task), and it'd only work well in hot weather. I should stop, I don't want to give this conman too many ideas for his next scam. Anyone genuinely interested in this as a legitimate concept should investigate fuel cell technology.