Divalent

Members
  • Content

    925
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

13 Neutral

Gear

  • Main Canopy Size
    188
  • Reserve Canopy Size
    190
  • AAD
    Cypres

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    the Farm
  • License
    C
  • License Number
    40494
  • Licensing Organization
    USPA
  • Number of Jumps
    598
  • Years in Sport
    9

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Despite having a disability in one of your arms, if you are able to move it, then you are using muscles. And if the problem you have is due to fatigue and/or weakness, that is (at least in part) a muscle issue. Muscles can be strengthened with exercises that 1) mimic the particular motion that is current is weak, and 2) provide load resistance in the same direction that currently is weak. Maybe not to the point where it is as strong as your other arm, but almost certainly stronger than it is now. So maybe (in addition to other's suggestions above, like keeping your hands close to your midline, and using your good arm for most things before you land) try to do exercises like pulling down against an elastic, or on a weight machine configured to raise the weights when you are moving your arm downward in a way that is identical to what you do when you flare.
  2. A man boards and airplane and sits next to an attractive woman. After a couple of minutes, the woman sneezes, and rather than wipe her nose with her tissue, she instead reaches between her legs and wipes her vagina. The man is initially too embarrassed to say anything, but after the third time witnessing this, he quietly leans over and asks, "Is everything alright?" The woman looks at him at says, "I'm sorry, but I have a rare condition that whenever I sneeze, I have an orgasm." "Whoa!" the man exclaims, "That's pretty serious. What do you take for it?" The woman replies, "Pepper."
  3. Except polarized sunglasses are oriented to block light reflecting off of surfaces, which has a pronounced horizontal polarization. This is why they are better at preferentially cutting down on glare, compared to non-polarized sunglasses. I doubt they make polarized glasses that are oriented 90 degrees from the standard orientation. (I mean, who would want sunglasses that make glare worse?)
  4. https://www.facebook.com/alex.coker.39/videos/373257630998893/ Looks like about 2 min 20 sec of freefall.
  5. The 1993 French patent would have expired. BTW, for those that actually read the patent to try to figure out where Aerodyne might be infringing it, you might find the following useful: Only the "Claims" section specifies what the patent covers. The preceding sections help you understand things, and can define what terms actually mean, but unless it is in a claim, it is not something that is covered by the patent that they were granted. There are 21 claims, and for this patent, claim 1 is the broadest claim. All subsequent claims are based off of this one by adding one or more additional descriptions that further specify elements in claim 1 (and so, they narrow the coverage of the claim). For example in claim #17 they state that a particular "connector" in claim 1 is formed by a loop of the lanyard. This is typical of patents, where claim 1 is quite vague of about the particulars of an element, and then subsequent claims get more particular. (E.g., Claim 1: "A car with tires." Claim 2: "A car with 4 tires." Claim 3: "A car with 4 tires made of 95.3% rubber and 4.7% polyester") So, *IF* claim 1 is valid (i.e., that claim can *not* be defeated by proving that that claim of the patent should not have been granted), then if they don't infringe claim #1, they don't infringe the patent. You don't need to look at claims 2-21 (because they have to infringe #1 in order to infringe any of the others). And to infringe a patent claim, one has to infringe each and every element in the claim. [Now if claim 1 can be defeated, (for example, by showing that one element was prior art and thus not patentable) then you might have to look at the other claims. Maybe connectors were used in the past to do what they are doing for one element in claim 1, and so on that basis claim 1 is ruled invalid, but maybe it is novel to make a connector from a loop of the lanyard, in which case claim 17 could still be valid.]
  6. What’s the difference between your job and a dead prostitute? Your job still sucks. How do you get a nun pregnant? Dress her up like an altar boy. What do you call a cheap circumcision? A rip-off. What’s the difference between a bitch and a whore? A whore sleeps with everyone at the party. A bitch sleeps with everyone at the party—except you. What does it mean if a man remembers the color of a woman’s eyes after a first date? She’s got small tits.
  7. Lets see, at 41k ft, atmospheric pressure would be about 19% of sea level. So one would have to breathe 100% O2 to have the same concentration as you get in air at sea level (~20%). I wonder what terminal velocity would be at that height. A quick google says terminal velocity is proportional to the square root of 1 divided by the air density, so sqrt(1 / 0.19) = sqrt(5.26) = 2.3. So if belly terminal velocity is 120 mph, at 41k it would be 275 mph. If head down is 165 mph, then 378 mph. (Although probably about 20% less, as standard terminal velocities for skydivers are probably measured at 8k or so above sea level.)
  8. So does this look like Cooper? Lots of details about Hahneman in the Wikipedia account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Hahneman#The_hijacking (what brand of cigarette did Cooper smoke?) Maybe he lost the "Cooper" money in his jump, so that explains why he did it again (assuming he was, in fact, Cooper).
  9. LOL! So he asks for 2 mains and 2 reserves, and the FBI gives him 2 bailout rigs (that can't take a reserve) and 2 reserves? (So the fact that one "reserve" was actually a dummy is a complete moot point, as both were useless with a bailout rig.) Man! Never trust the FBI! I think it's very likely that he had at least some skydiving experience, but was not a rigger-level. I think a somewhat experienced skydiver would not have immediately recognized that the main rigs were bailouts, and by the time they were back up in the air and he figured it out, it was probably too late to make the plane land yet again and get proper equipment. He had enough experience, tho, to gamble with jumping without a reserve. But given that they fucked him on the reserves, is it not unreasonable for them to have also fucked him on the mains? (IMO, the question is whether they gave him a 50% chance of surviving, or a 0% chance.) The moral for me is: "Never trust the FBI!"
  10. That's just not true. Nobody was geeking the camera on that jump. They spent over a minute trying to link up, and both were focused on that task. And THAT'S what was distracting them from checking their altitude! Once they did link up, their AAD's fired in less than 3 seconds! The camera had nothing to do with it.
  11. (forgive me for asking questions that I assume have already been addressed.) How do you know the dummy reserve couldn't be attached to a harness? The wikipedia DB Cooper paged linked to an FBI page that only said it was "sewn shut". I would think if you have a mock-up for ground training that it would be important to be able to attach it to a (dummy) harness, so you can feel the weight and bulk, see your altimeter (often mounted on top of the reserve), etc. Otherwise it's just something to look at, which doesn't seem worth the trouble to create, given that there were plenty real reserves at DZs to look at. So has it been established that it lacked the ability to be attached to a harness? Why would he have wasted time and effort discarding it if he recognized it was a dummy? Unlike other things he apparently tossed, he didn't bring this on the plane, so it wasn't something that might have value in IDing him that he needed to get rid of. (Canvas wouldn't have finger prints on them.) I suppose he could have cannibalized the good reserve for lines before he noticed that the other wasn't real (and so he knew he'd be jumping without a reserve), but still doesn't explain why he later tossed it. (Maybe he only noticed it at the last minute, as putting the reserve on would be one of the last things he would do after getting geared up, and threw it out in frustration when he finally discovered it wasn't real.)
  12. Well, if he was a skydiver, then I highly doubt he would have done that. He'd jump clear of the plane, stabilize himself at about a 120-130 mph fall rate in a belly-to-earth posture, then deploy. Even if the plane was traveling 120 mph, I'd fear snagging of the pilot chute or lines with parts of the plane and ramp, particularly in the turbulent air that back there. And I'd also fear the speed would more quickly inflate the main, which means the forces experienced would be even greater then the 2x you'd estimate just from the velocity (squared). But the fact that he chose a dummy reserve seems to suggest he wasn't a skydiver, and so perhaps all that didn't occur to him.
  13. Yeah, if he intended to commit suicide. The acceleration (deceleration?) force would likely have snapped his neck (and the rest of his body). That's assuming the pilot chute and lines didn't snag on the ramp/stairs/support in what was very likely very turbulent air back there.
  14. My granddad said "It's going to be horrendous on the roads this weekend, snow is forecast". "Tell me something I don't know" I replied. "I can get my whole fist up your Nanna's arse" he said .
  15. Just a reminder that the Nova show on electric airplanes is to be broadcast on PBS tonight.