Schematics For A Flying Saucer

[HVAC]

Harlow's Notes: So it is quite obvious that ufos do not exist.




http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/the-airforce/



Officially, aliens have never existed but flying saucers very nearly
did. The National Archives has recently published never-before-seen
schematics and details of a 1950s military venture, called Project 1794,
which aimed to build a supersonic flying saucer.

The newly declassified materials show the U.S. Air Force had a contract
with a now-defunct Canadian company to build an aircraft unlike anything
seen before. Project 1794 got as far as the initial rounds of product
development and into prototype design. In a memo dating from 1956 the
results from pre-prototype testing are summarized and reveal exactly
what the developers had hoped to create.

The saucer was supposed to reach a top speed of “between Mach 3 and Mach
4, a ceiling of over 100,000 ft. and a maximum range with allowances of
about 1,000 nautical miles,” according to the document.

If the plans had followed through to completion they would have created
a saucer, which could spin through the Earth’s stratosphere at an
average top speed of about 2,600 miles per hour. Wow. It was also
designed to take off and land vertically (VTOL), using propulsion jets
to control and stabilize the aircraft. Admittedly the range of 1,000
nautical miles seems limited in comparison to the other specifications –
but if you’d hopped on the disk in New York it could’ve had you in Miami
within about 24 minutes.

The document also hints that the product development seemed to be going
better than planned; “the present design will provide a much superior
performance to that estimated at the start of contract negotiations.”

It begs the question – why was the project dropped? Why aren’t wars
being fought with flying saucers? The cost of continuing to prototype
was estimated at $3,168,000, which roughly translates to about $26.6
million in today’s money and wouldn’t have been an insane price for such
advanced technology. The problem with the other flying saucers developed
under the same program (see video) is pretty clear. They didn’t get
anywhere near 100,000 feet in altitude, more like five or six if you
were lucky – so the military finally pulled the plug in 1960.












--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮

[hanis...@gmail.com]

The UFOs like in the movies, they should adapt that kinda design. Considering the Aero-dynamics. The control centre should be undocked, so that we can have a specific direction to move on :-)

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/6/2012 9:05 AM, HVAC wrote:
>
> Harlow's Notes: So it is quite obvious that ufos do not exist.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/the-airforce/
>
>
>
> Officially, aliens have never existed but flying saucers very nearly
> did. The National Archives has recently published never-before-seen
> schematics and details of a 1950s military venture, called Project 1794,
> which aimed to build a supersonic flying saucer.

More old disinformation. It never stops. There are not UFOs. Pay no
attention to that man behind the curtain. It's just swamp gas. It was
just a weather balloon. The pilot saw venus and mistook it for a
metallic craft the size of a football field. ETc. ETc.

Harlow you disinformers never give up, do you?

Luckily, a totally uneducated and gullible public is pretty much still
buying the hogwash from you strategic writers. Why don't you haul out
the paintings of that Adamski "chicken brooder" saucer from "Venus"
again? That's always good to stir the pot.

[HVAC]

On 10/6/2012 11:26 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 9:05 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>
>> Harlow's Notes: So it is quite obvious that ufos do not exist.
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/the-airforce/
>>
>
>

> More old disinformation. It never stops. There are not UFOs. Pay no
> attention to that man behind the curtain. It's just swamp gas. It was
> just a weather balloon. The pilot saw venus and mistook it for a
> metallic craft the size of a football field. ETc. ETc.

ALL of the above choices are preferable since there is absolutely ZERO
evidence that any alien has EVER visited the Earth.

Haven't you ever seen a mirage? Do you know what causes them?

> Harlow you disinformers never give up, do you?

I only offer the truth as opposed to the kookiness that you, Painus and
Bert put forth. I am the steady hand of fact that keeps this ship on
course to it's ultimate end.

> Luckily, a totally uneducated and gullible public is pretty much still
> buying the hogwash from you strategic writers.

That's why I get the big money, BJ. And I do it right in your face!
There is nothing you can do about it. Nothing.

> Why don't you haul out
> the paintings of that Adamski "chicken brooder" saucer from "Venus"
> again? That's always good to stir the pot.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Harlow's Notes: So it is quite obvious that ufos do not exist.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/the-airforce/
>
>
>
> Officially, aliens have never existed but flying saucers very nearly
> did. The National Archives has recently published never-before-seen
> schematics and details of a 1950s military venture, called Project 1794,
> which aimed to build a supersonic flying saucer.

Yep, and it was also called the Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar and was an utter
failure for numerous reasons.

The military was looking for a VTOL fighter and lots of dumb ideas were
tried in that effort.

[HVAC]

Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/6/2012 12:36 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Harlow's Notes: So it is quite obvious that ufos do not exist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/the-airforce/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Officially, aliens have never existed but flying saucers very nearly
>>> did. The National Archives has recently published never-before-seen
>>> schematics and details of a 1950s military venture, called Project 1794,
>>> which aimed to build a supersonic flying saucer.
>>
>> Yep, and it was also called the Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar and was an utter
>> failure for numerous reasons.
>>
>> The military was looking for a VTOL fighter and lots of dumb ideas were
>> tried in that effort.
>
>
> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.

The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
it too was an utter failure.

[HVAC]

On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
>
> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
> it too was an utter failure.

That is what they would like you to believe.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
>>
>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
>> it too was an utter failure.
>
>
> That is what they would like you to believe.
>

Who is "they", is that the voices in your head?

Back in the real world...

A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous disadvantages.

It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been a dismal
failure.

[Mike Painter]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:34:38 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
>>
>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
>> it too was an utter failure.
>
>
>That is what they would like you to believe.

The dimension ratios for a streamlined device is well known to man
and nature has been building along that design for hundreds of
millions, if not billions of years. It is rough 3 to 1 and a circles
can never have that ration.

"spin through the Earth�s ..."
Spinning to achieve lift or forward motion is pretty much limited to
low speeds, not that the picture shows anything that would be a
lifting body.

[linuxgal]

Mike Painter wrote:
>
> The dimension ratios for a streamlined device is well known to man
> and nature has been building along that design for hundreds of
> millions, if not billions of years. It is rough 3 to 1 and a circles
> can never have that ration.
>

What if the circle is very hungry?

--
Conservatives fear that you won't understand their proposals; liberals
fear that you will.

[linuxgal]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
> a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous disadvantages.
>

Yeah, any dog on a beach can catch ya.

[yahw...@gmail.com]

The Sheridas Questis solution:

Flood the planet Earth by Exodus.

The Sheridas Questis resolution:

Since water is the solution, we shall use it.

The Snodgrass paradox:

I will we want.

The truth is the only "U.F.O." is a bi-product of Noah's ark. It would be like the golden egg of the pheonix to transform Earth into the beginning. It is an obalisque for the safari as well. On this safari, many things could be made. Since it is a protection device for the fruit off the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it won't resort to finalism. The last resort of the Snodgrass paradox is "forrest north". Note the spelling...

A forrest is a place of foilage for vegetation. Vegetation is planted in the earth. The earth is ground for many plants. Plants may be planted or be seeded and may not be planted in the ground. So how does the seed become a plant? How does the cock make an egg? How does the cloud cover of the planet become water? How does language change the world? Language changes every thing. Water is in the clouds. A seed becomes a plant from eggs. Ovum aren't eggs nor is semen a seed. The planet contracts to contractions. The vibration makes eggs of the cock. The oscillation in making is perceptible. Sin isn't a power resource. The vacillation of oscillations makes for dirt as cruddy as dim in order of the seed as dirty. Yet the vacillation of oscillations isn't another voice or mine right now. The mental veign is psychic? Many psychics are in vain of my name so knoweth the Lord; so I typeth... God sayeth which I typeth. I never typed evil... I ever disconnected my perception from it though that it isn't seductive to me, so I knoweth. We act. Light enlightens. Enlightenment becomes matter.

[Fred^2]

HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Harlow's Notes: So it is quite obvious that ufos do not exist.
>http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/the-airforce/

bet you all the frothing loons out there now think that Wired
is in on the c0nsp1r@ce.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/6/2012 11:55 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 11:26 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:

>> Luckily, a totally uneducated and gullible public is pretty much still
>> buying the hogwash from you strategic writers.
>
>
> That's why I get the big money, BJ. And I do it right in your face!
> There is nothing you can do about it. Nothing.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "nothing". If that were actually true,
you and your bosses wouldn't be so scared shitless of the truth getting
out!

>> Why don't you haul out
>> the paintings of that Adamski "chicken brooder" saucer from "Venus"
>> again? That's always good to stir the pot.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.

What happened to that "highest IQ on the planet", Harlow?

You can't even remember the images that YOU YOURSELF posted? Perhaps
you'd better go check on your pal TreeBert. He can't remember where he
is either.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/6/2012 1:34 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
>>
>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944,
>> and
>> it too was an utter failure.
>
>
> That is what they would like you to believe.

<smile> Thank you, HVAC. You saved me some typing.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

And of course, you are totally conversant with all attempts to build
"flying saucers" (Lenticular Aerodyne Technology). I'm sure you could
tell us more, but tnen you'd have to kill us.

Perhaps you can HVAC to post his fake saucer-crop circle painting again.
(Which oddly didn't show up in a Google search! Those gummint computer
terminals have oh SO much more info than our "civilian" ones!)

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

Are you a Snider sock puppet? You sure have ripped a page out of his
operations manual.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics bja...@teranews.com <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 2:27 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
>>>>
>>>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
>>>> it too was an utter failure.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is what they would like you to believe.
>>>
>>
>> Who is "they", is that the voices in your head?
>>
>> Back in the real world...
>>
>> A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
>> a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous disadvantages.
>>
>> It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been a dismal
>> failure.
>
> And of course, you are totally conversant with all attempts to build
> "flying saucers" (Lenticular Aerodyne Technology). I'm sure you could
> tell us more, but tnen you'd have to kill us.

"Lenticular Aerodyne Technology"??

You mean those coo coo for cocoa puffs who ascribe some mystical property
to round wings?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics bja...@teranews.com <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

Hmmm, two wackadoodles hearing voices in their heads...

What are "they" telling you?

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

Mystical property? How's your physics jimp? How else are those
lenticular aerodynes going to make those "impossible" right angle turns
that everybody "imagines" they see? It doesn't matter if one is "insane"
if your science is correct. I think that is well established. [John
Forbes Nash jr.]

You still haven't explained just HOW you became familiar with "ALL"
attempts to build such craft so as to be sure they are "all" failures.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Yep, coo coo for cocoa puffs.

Not that I want to feed your insanity, but those "impossible" right angle
turns aren't "impossible" because the airframe can't do it, but because
the crew couldn't withstand them.

That is unless a round wing has some mystical magic property.

> You still haven't explained just HOW you became familiar with "ALL"
> attempts to build such craft so as to be sure they are "all" failures.

Yep, coo coo for cocoa puffs.

[Dakota]

That might also explain why there are not saucer shaped birds. :)

[HVAC]

On 10/6/2012 6:09 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>>> Luckily, a totally uneducated and gullible public is pretty much still
>>> buying the hogwash from you strategic writers.
>>
>>
>> That's why I get the big money, BJ. And I do it right in your face!
>> There is nothing you can do about it. Nothing.
>
> I wouldn't go so far as to say "nothing". If that were actually true,
> you and your bosses wouldn't be so scared shitless of the truth getting
> out!

I was misquoted.

>>> Why don't you haul out
>>> the paintings of that Adamski "chicken brooder" saucer from "Venus"
>>> again? That's always good to stir the pot.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> What happened to that "highest IQ on the planet", Harlow?
>
> You can't even remember the images that YOU YOURSELF posted? Perhaps
> you'd better go check on your pal TreeBert. He can't remember where he
> is either.

I posted a picture of a 'chicken brooder from Venus'?

My memory IS going.

[HVAC]

On 10/6/2012 6:21 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>> A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
>> a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous
>> disadvantages.
>>
>> It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been
>> a dismal
>> failure.
>
> And of course, you are totally conversant with all attempts to build
> "flying saucers" (Lenticular Aerodyne Technology). I'm sure you could
> tell us more, but tnen you'd have to kill us.

I cracked up when I saw that people took my comment of "That is what
they would like you to believe" seriously. Obviously the need for a
sarcasm emoticon is apparent.

> Perhaps you can HVAC to post his fake saucer-crop circle painting again.
> (Which oddly didn't show up in a Google search! Those gummint computer
> terminals have oh SO much more info than our "civilian" ones!)

I recall no such post.

[Bill Snyder]

Free clue, shit-bot: Lots of people laughed at Bozo the clown. It
wasn't because they were all conspirators or sock puppets. (But of
course, even with the free clue, you'll be totally unable to
figure out what other reason there might have been.)

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/7/2012 1:27 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>> Mystical property? How's your physics jimp? How else are those
>> lenticular aerodynes going to make those "impossible" right angle turns
>> that everybody "imagines" they see? It doesn't matter if one is "insane"
>> if your science is correct. I think that is well established. [John
>> Forbes Nash jr.]
>
> Yep, coo coo for cocoa puffs.

So now your "science" has lapsed down to the level of Wormley and
Snider? Obvious proof this subject is politics and not science!

> Not that I want to feed your insanity, but those "impossible" right angle
> turns aren't "impossible" because the airframe can't do it, but because
> the crew couldn't withstand them.

Whew! Just so long as we are sure that everyone who thinks they saw them
was "coo coo for cocoa puffs" and they are still "impossible".

> That is unless a round wing has some mystical magic property.

It does have a "magical" property! Unlike human aircraft it flies just
as well at 90 degrees to it's current direction of motion.

>> You still haven't explained just HOW you became familiar with "ALL"
>> attempts to build such craft so as to be sure they are "all" failures.
>
> Yep, coo coo for cocoa puffs.

Logical lapse, answered with accusations of insanity for critics. I take
it you are signed up for some of "professor" Wormley's classes and he's
educating your in how to do "climate science"! Perhaps then YOU can
explain how adding constant increasing heat to an object makes its
temperature go down? All Wormley can say is "coo coo for cocoa puffs"!

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics bja...@teranews.com <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> On 10/7/2012 1:27 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>> Mystical property? How's your physics jimp? How else are those
>>> lenticular aerodynes going to make those "impossible" right angle turns
>>> that everybody "imagines" they see? It doesn't matter if one is "insane"
>>> if your science is correct. I think that is well established. [John
>>> Forbes Nash jr.]
>>
>> Yep, coo coo for cocoa puffs.
>
> So now your "science" has lapsed down to the level of Wormley and
> Snider? Obvious proof this subject is politics and not science!

Nope, it is just that you are obviously nuts.

>> Not that I want to feed your insanity, but those "impossible" right angle
>> turns aren't "impossible" because the airframe can't do it, but because
>> the crew couldn't withstand them.
>
> Whew! Just so long as we are sure that everyone who thinks they saw them
> was "coo coo for cocoa puffs" and they are still "impossible".

Illogical gibberish.

>> That is unless a round wing has some mystical magic property.
>
> It does have a "magical" property! Unlike human aircraft it flies just
> as well at 90 degrees to it's current direction of motion.

And that would be derirable in what comic book world?

You do know helicopters can do that but usually don't as it makes it
difficult to steer that way?

>>> You still haven't explained just HOW you became familiar with "ALL"
>>> attempts to build such craft so as to be sure they are "all" failures.
>>
>> Yep, coo coo for cocoa puffs.
>
> Logical lapse, answered with accusations of insanity for critics. I take
> it you are signed up for some of "professor" Wormley's classes and he's
> educating your in how to do "climate science"! Perhaps then YOU can
> explain how adding constant increasing heat to an object makes its
> temperature go down? All Wormley can say is "coo coo for cocoa puffs"!

Another pile of illogical gibberish.

[Fred^2]

oh noes! is all them scientists ganging up on you, loon?

wrap anoter layer of foil around yer head, that should stop it.

[CWatters]

On 06/10/2012 14:05, HVAC wrote:

> It begs the question – why was the project dropped?

They probably showed it to someone who knew something about aerodynamics
and they fell about laughing. The shape choosen isn't exactly the most
streamlined.

[Painius]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 09:05:52 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Harlow's Notes: So it is quite obvious that ufos do not exist.
>
>http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/the-airforce/
>

>Officially, aliens have never existed but flying saucers very nearly
>did. The National Archives has recently published never-before-seen
>schematics and details of a 1950s military venture, called Project 1794,
>which aimed to build a supersonic flying saucer.

> . . .

That design was flawed from the getgo. Real saucers have no moving
parts. The round design is to accomodate the winding of wire around
the outer edge to result in a powerful electromagnetic field. The
field can then interact with a planet's magnetic field. Controls
within the saucer are designed to maneuver the vehicle by altering the
interaction with the planetary field. These vehicles may only be used
for travel within the atmosphere of a planet that has at least a small
magnetic field.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"If you really want to alter your life, alter your attitude of mind."

[Painius]

No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
produce lift and thrust.

[Painius]

It's an "effective" spin. The saucer itself does not spin; the
electrons in the current through the wires that encircle the saucer do
the "spinning" around the edge. That builds up a powerful
electromagnetic field that interacts with a planet's magnetic field.

If the top of the saucer is built like the top of a wing, while the
bottom is flat like the bottom of a wing, you have a 360 degree
airfoil.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 18:27:30 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Canadians can't build a ufo. You want a ufo? Go get yourself a kraut.
>>>>
>>>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
>>>> it too was an utter failure.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is what they would like you to believe.
>>>
>>
>>Who is "they", is that the voices in your head?
>>
>>Back in the real world...
>>
>>A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
>>a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous disadvantages.
>>
>>It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been a dismal
>>failure.
>
> No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
> wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
> produce lift and thrust.

Yeah, sure they do.

And it is the round shape and a liberal sprinkling of pixie dust that
makes this all work...

Yet another nut coo coo for cocoa puffs.

[Father Haskell]

On Oct 7, 6:35 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 18:27:30 -0000, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >In sci.physics HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> >>>> Canadians can't build a ufo.  You want a ufo?  Go get yourself a kraut.
>
> >>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
> >>> it too was an utter failure.
>
> >> That is what they would like you to believe.
>
> >Who is "they", is that the voices in your head?
>
> >Back in the real world...
>
> >A round wing is likely the absolute worst geometry one could pick for
> >a wing shape. It has zero aerodynamic advantages and numerous disadvantages.
>
> >It is why every attempt to build a practical "flying saucer" has been a dismal
> >failure.
>
> No, not a round wing exactly.  The top of the saucer must be built
> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
> wing, to produce an airfoil.  The controls, which alter the
> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
> produce lift and thrust.

Interesting. So your saying a turtle is infinitely
more airworthy than say, a seagull?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:28:10 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
<father...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

Is that why it's turtles all the way down?

[Father Haskell]

On Oct 7, 7:30 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:28:10 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell

> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

Yes. Flying turtles, apparently.

[Painius]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:28:10 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell

The turtle's shape is more conducive to being "waterworthy".

[Painius]

It's just speculation and conjecture - the result of an imagination of
such things.

Evidently an imagination is foreign to you?

[Lofty Goat]

You're arguing with someone who contends that self-driving cars will never
work, and was still saying so the year (2010) one drove itself from Parma,
Italy to Shanghai, China. -- Goat

[Father Haskell]

Then why are there land tortoises?

[Thomas Trotter]

On Oct 7, 12:16 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics bjac...@teranews.com <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

wooooooooooshhhhh .............

(I think I'm getting the hang of this. So much fun, so little time)

[Thomas Trotter]

On Oct 6, 9:05 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Harlow's Notes: So it is quite obvious that ufos do not exist.
>
> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/the-airforce/
>
> Officially, aliens have never existed but flying saucers very nearly
> did. The National Archives has recently published never-before-seen
> schematics and details of a 1950s military venture, called Project 1794,
> which aimed to build a supersonic flying saucer.
>

> The newly declassified materials show the U.S. Air Force had a contract
> with a now-defunct Canadian company to build an aircraft unlike anything
> seen before. Project 1794 got as far as the initial rounds of product
> development and into prototype design. In a memo dating from 1956 the
> results from pre-prototype testing are summarized and reveal exactly
> what the developers had hoped to create.
>
> The saucer was supposed to reach a top speed of “between Mach 3 and Mach
> 4, a ceiling of over 100,000 ft. and a maximum range with allowances of
> about 1,000 nautical miles,” according to the document.
>
> If the plans had followed through to completion they would have created
> a saucer, which could spin through the Earth’s stratosphere at an
> average top speed of about 2,600 miles per hour. Wow. It was also
> designed to take off and land vertically (VTOL), using propulsion jets
> to control and stabilize the aircraft. Admittedly the range of 1,000
> nautical miles seems limited in comparison to the other specifications –
> but if you’d hopped on the disk in New York it could’ve had you in Miami
> within about 24 minutes.
>
> The document also hints that the product development seemed to be going
> better than planned; “the present design will provide a much superior
> performance to that estimated at the start of contract negotiations.”
>
> It begs the question – why was the project dropped? Why aren’t wars
> being fought with flying saucers? The cost of continuing to prototype
> was estimated at $3,168,000, which roughly translates to about $26.6
> million in today’s money and wouldn’t have been an insane price for such
> advanced technology. The problem with the other flying saucers developed
> under the same program (see video) is pretty clear. They didn’t get
> anywhere near 100,000 feet in altitude, more like five or six if you
> were lucky – so the military finally pulled the plug in 1960.

>
> --
> "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo.. 变亮

nithywab taktor ... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

YES! You are! Welcome aboard! :-)

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

Depends on how fast it's flying and how many right angle turns it needs
to make!

[Father Haskell]

On Oct 7, 6:29 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:

> That design was flawed from the getgo.  Real saucers have no moving
> parts.

But do they have windows that can be opened?

[Christopher A. Lee]

Or doors so the aliends can come out to use their anal probes on
Paininarse.

[HVAC]

On 10/7/2012 7:28 PM, Father Haskell wrote:
>

>> No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
>> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
>> wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
>> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
>> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
>> produce lift and thrust.
>
> Interesting. So your saying a turtle is infinitely
> more airworthy than say, a seagull?

Only if the turtle is outfitted with an electromagnetic field generator.














--

[HVAC]

On 10/7/2012 7:28 PM, Father Haskell wrote:
>

>> No, not a round wing exactly. The top of the saucer must be built
>> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
>> wing, to produce an airfoil. The controls, which alter the
>> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
>> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
>> produce lift and thrust.
>
> Interesting. So your saying a turtle is infinitely
> more airworthy than say, a seagull?

http://newsanvil.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/picture-019.jpg?w=300&h=225


Proof.

[hanis...@gmail.com]

Maybe we don't believe UFOs. But we're talking about designs for space crafts

[Painius]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 21:46:16 -0500, Lofty Goat <rlwa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

O! my, Goat! He goes into denial even when faced with objective
facts? That's not good - that's not good at all. LOL !

[Painius]

I suppose it has to do with the same reason there are land mammals and
land plants. It may have something to do with being drawn to the land
by their food? Evolution often produces life that, millions of years
later, may make no sense to erudite species. Suffice to say that
there was probably a sensible meaning to it when it happened.

I am a pilot, and so I am well-versed in the things it takes to get
off the ground. The airfoil shape is intrinsic to most powered flight
as we know it, so I find it interesting that you and others here
challenge the *shape* that I suggested, and you have completely
disregarded the *truly* speculative part I covered that has to do with
the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field brought about by the
intensive winding of a conductor around the outer edge of the saucer.

That is the only reason I can think of to make the vehicle round. Note
also that it would only be practical to fly a saucer near a planet
with a magnetic field. So saucers most certainly would have to be
"shuttlecrafts" that travel between a "mothership" and a planet.

[Painius]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 01:48:06 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
<chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 21:41:05 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
><father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 7, 6:29�pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That design was flawed from the getgo. �Real saucers have no moving
>>> parts.
>>
>>But do they have windows that can be opened?

IF (and yes, that's a BIG "if") a race of life were able to traverse
the wide expanses of space, their technology would be way above our
heads (no pun intended). Their sensing abilities would include
devices to see ahead and around them and ingress/egress ports that we
would understand very little if any.

>Or doors so the aliends can come out to use their anal probes on
>Paininarse.

Imaginations are lost on those with only two brain cells. Chrissy, if
you were to rub your brain cells together, would it produce even more
mind farts? LMFAO !

[hanis...@gmail.com]

MAN put man on MOON. Put satellites in the SKY. I don't see what MAN CAN'T DO? :/

[HVAC]

On 10/8/2012 10:51 AM, Painius wrote:
>
> I am a pilot


Does piloting a clown car REALLY count?

[hanis...@gmail.com]

If that is you, then YEAH. It should COUNT++

[Painius]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:46:40 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/8/2012 10:51 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> I am a pilot
>
>Does piloting a clown car REALLY count?

So THAT'S where you got your diploma - a CIRCUS.

Yes, now everything about you makes sense.

You're a RINGMASTER wannabee!

LOFL !

[hanis...@gmail.com]

COMBAT pilots? :D

[HVAC]

O
>>> I am a pilot
>>
>> Does piloting a clown car REALLY count?
>
> So THAT'S where you got your diploma - a CIRCUS.
>
> Yes, now everything about you makes sense.
>
> You're a RINGMASTER wannabee!

Next time you get into your (ahem) 'anti-magnetic saucer' and take it
out for a spin, be sure that your pilot's license is up to date.

[Mike Painter]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:53:02 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

>Mike Painter wrote:
>>
>> The dimension ratios for a streamlined device is well known to man
>> and nature has been building along that design for hundreds of
>> millions, if not billions of years. It is rough 3 to 1 and a circles
>> can never have that ration.
>>
>What if the circle is very hungry?

Give me a week or so and I'll come up with a snappy response.

[HVAC]

On 10/6/2012 2:53 PM, linuxgal wrote:
> Mike Painter wrote:
>>
>> The dimension ratios for a streamlined device is well known to man
>> and nature has been building along that design for hundreds of
>> millions, if not billions of years. It is rough 3 to 1 and a circles
>> can never have that ration.
>>
> What if the circle is very hungry?
>

Let him eat Pi.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

hanis...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maybe we don't believe UFOs. But we're talking about designs for space crafts
>

Who is "we"?

All the discussion has been about AIRcraft with round wings.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Lofty Goat <rlwa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You're arguing with someone who contends that self-driving cars will never
> work, and was still saying so the year (2010) one drove itself from Parma,
> Italy to Shanghai, China. -- Goat

I never said they wouldn't work, I said that ultimately they will be
a disaster and should not be allowed on public roads.

[linuxgal]

HVAC wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 2:53 PM, linuxgal wrote:
>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>>
>>> The dimension ratios for a streamlined device is well known to man
>>> and nature has been building along that design for hundreds of
>>> millions, if not billions of years. It is rough 3 to 1 and a circles
>>> can never have that ration.
>>>
>> What if the circle is very hungry?
>>
> Let him eat Pi.
>

I think we're going off on a tangent.

--
Conservatives fear that you won't understand their proposals; liberals
fear that you will.

[Double-A]

On Oct 8, 10:46 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

You think the human mind can react to a traffic situation faster than
a high speed processor? Eventually it's the human drivers who will be
not allowed on public streets!

Did you know that the Vancouver, BC subway trains have had no drivers
for the last 25 years?

Double-A

[HVAC]

On 10/8/2012 2:43 PM, Double-A wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:46 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Lofty Goat<rlwatk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You're arguing with someone who contends that self-driving cars will never
>>> work, and was still saying so the year (2010) one drove itself from Parma,
>>> Italy to Shanghai, China. -- Goat
>>
>> I never said they wouldn't work, I said that ultimately they will be
>> a disaster and should not be allowed on public roads.
>
>
> You think the human mind can react to a traffic situation faster than
> a high speed processor? Eventually it's the human drivers who will be
> not allowed on public streets!
>

Agree. I'd like to kill or at least maim a few drivers every day.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Double-A <doub...@hush.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:46 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Lofty Goat <rlwatk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > You're arguing with someone who contends that self-driving cars will never
>> > work, and was still saying so the year (2010) one drove itself from Parma,
>> > Italy to Shanghai, China. -- Goat
>>
>> I never said they wouldn't work, I said that ultimately they will be
>> a disaster and should not be allowed on public roads.
>
>
> You think the human mind can react to a traffic situation faster than
> a high speed processor?

That is not the issue at all.

> Eventually it's the human drivers who will be
> not allowed on public streets!

That's never going to happen.

> Did you know that the Vancouver, BC subway trains have had no drivers
> for the last 25 years?

Did you know trains are limited to travel in one dimension by the tracks
and that having multiple trains on a given set of tracks is highly
controlled while cars can travel in two dimensions and there is no
control what so ever over when a car may enter of leave a lane so
comparing trains to cars is puerile at best?

[linuxgal]

Double-A wrote:

> Did you know that the Vancouver, BC subway trains have had no drivers
> for the last 25 years?

Neither does the Sea-Tac trains to North and South Satellites. But
that's just stop and go.

[Father Haskell]

On Oct 8, 10:51 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> I am a pilot, and so I am well-versed in the things it takes to get
> off the ground.  The airfoil shape is intrinsic to most powered flight
> as we know it,

Then how do paper airplanes work? Or those 50 cent
rubber band powered balsa planes? No airfoils in either
case.

[Father Haskell]

On Oct 8, 12:39 am, "bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

It's a turtle. I doubt it flies any faster than it walks.

[Father Haskell]

On Oct 8, 8:36 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 7:28 PM, Father Haskell wrote:
>
>
>
> >> No, not a round wing exactly.  The top of the saucer must be built
> >> like the top of a wing, and the bottom is flat like the bottom of a
> >> wing, to produce an airfoil.  The controls, which alter the
> >> interaction between the saucer's powerful electromagnetic field with a
> >> planet's magnetic field, work together with the airfoil shape to
> >> produce lift and thrust.
>
> > Interesting.  So your saying a turtle is infinitely
> > more airworthy than say, a seagull?
>
> Only if the turtle is outfitted with an electromagnetic field generator.

Or if it's over the magnetic north or south pole.

[Father Haskell]

On Oct 8, 2:42 pm, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> HVAC wrote:
> > On 10/6/2012 2:53 PM, linuxgal wrote:
> >> Mike Painter wrote:
>
> >>> The dimension ratios for a streamlined device is well known to man
> >>> and nature has been building along that design for hundreds of
> >>> millions, if not billions of years. It is rough 3 to 1 and a circles
> >>> can never have that ration.
>
> >> What if the circle is very hungry?
>
> > Let him eat Pi.
>
> I think we're going off on a tangent.

This argument has just struck a bad chord.

[Father Haskell]

On Oct 7, 6:57 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:44:24 -0700, Mike Painter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> >On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:34:38 -0400, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On 10/6/2012 1:06 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> >>>> Canadians can't build a ufo.  You want a ufo?  Go get yourself a kraut.
>
> >>> The sole German attempt at a round aircraft was the Sack AS.6 in 1944, and
> >>> it too was an utter failure.
>
> >>That is what they would like you to believe.
>

> >The dimension ratios  for a streamlined device is well known to man
> >and nature has been building along that design for hundreds of
> >millions, if not billions of years. It is rough 3 to 1 and a circles
> >can never have that ration.
>

> >"spin through the Earth s ..."
> >Spinning to achieve lift or forward motion is pretty much limited  to
> >low speeds, not that the picture shows anything that would be a
> >lifting body.
>
> It's an "effective" spin.  The saucer itself does not spin; the
> electrons in the current through the wires that encircle the saucer do
> the "spinning" around the edge.  That builds up a powerful
> electromagnetic field that interacts with a planet's magnetic field.

At 90 degrees, negating all effects.

Tell us, do a magnet and a non-magnet fall at the same speed?
Since ferromagnetism and electromagnetism are one and
the same, shouldn't the two fall at different rates?

> If the top of the saucer is built like the top of a wing, while the
> bottom is flat like the bottom of a wing, you have a 360 degree
> airfoil.

You're better off with a long, skinny wing-shaped one.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

And how is a "disaster" different from "never" work?

Face it you really said building a self-driving car is "impossible"
which is the mathematical equivalent of saying, "I'm a moron". And then
when this fact was pointed out to you, you try to wiggle out of it. No
doubt soon you will be denying you ever said it at all and "everybody
knows" that self-driving cars can work" I've seen this bullshit so many
times before. You are just coo coo for cocoa puffs.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics bja...@teranews.com <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 10/8/2012 1:43 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Lofty Goat<rlwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You're arguing with someone who contends that self-driving cars will never
>>> work, and was still saying so the year (2010) one drove itself from Parma,
>>> Italy to Shanghai, China. -- Goat
>>
>> I never said they wouldn't work, I said that ultimately they will be
>> a disaster and should not be allowed on public roads.
>
> And how is a "disaster" different from "never" work?

The two words are entirely different.

I would suggest you consult a dictionary if you are that illiterate.

> Face it you really said building a self-driving car is "impossible"
> which is the mathematical equivalent of saying, "I'm a moron".

Nope, I never said that and your conclusion is puerile twaddle.

> And then
> when this fact was pointed out to you, you try to wiggle out of it.

There are no facts in evidence.

> No
> doubt soon you will be denying you ever said it at all

I have aleady said that, illiterate nut job.

> and "everybody
> knows" that self-driving cars can work" I've seen this bullshit so many
> times before. You are just coo coo for cocoa puffs.

You really are quite nuts.

[Bill Snyder]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:37:53 -0400, "bja...@teranews.com"
<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>On 10/8/2012 1:43 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Lofty Goat<rlwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You're arguing with someone who contends that self-driving cars will never
>>> work, and was still saying so the year (2010) one drove itself from Parma,
>>> Italy to Shanghai, China. -- Goat
>>
>> I never said they wouldn't work, I said that ultimately they will be
>> a disaster and should not be allowed on public roads.
>
>And how is a "disaster" different from "never" work?
>
>Face it you really said building a self-driving car is "impossible"
>which is the mathematical equivalent of saying, "I'm a moron".

Then show us that everything's possible, numbnuts. Name the
smallest number that's greater than zero. Name the largest prime.
Demonstrate a lossless compression method that works for all data.
Display one single ounce of common sense, and one single milligram
of honesty to go with it.

Nope, some things are just not possible.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/8/2012 7:19 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:

> Then show us that everything's possible, numbnuts. Name the
> smallest number that's greater than zero. Name the largest prime.
> Demonstrate a lossless compression method that works for all data.
> Display one single ounce of common sense, and one single milligram
> of honesty to go with it.
>
> Nope, some things are just not possible.

Right. Sure.

Heavier than air flight.

Electric motors without commutators.

Communication without wires.

A cure for smallpox.

Etc. Etc. ("everybody" knows these things are "impossible", right?)

And speaking of numbnuts, invoking mathematics is idiocy, since your
statements are entirely dependent upon the self-consistent system of
mathematics being invoked. For example in SOME systems parallel lines
actually meet somewhere. And in MY system of mathematics the smallest
number greater than zero is one! You'd better go back to just calling
people "insane".

Just use the "short form": "I'm a moron!"

[HVAC]

On 10/9/2012 1:01 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>
> And speaking of numbnuts, invoking mathematics is idiocy, since your
> statements are entirely dependent upon the self-consistent system of
> mathematics being invoked. For example in SOME systems parallel lines
> actually meet somewhere. And in MY system of mathematics the smallest
> number greater than zero is one! You'd better go back to just calling
> people "insane".
>
> Just use the "short form": "I'm a moron!"

Agree.

[Bill Snyder]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 01:01:32 -0400, "bja...@teranews.com"
<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>On 10/8/2012 7:19 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>> Then show us that everything's possible, numbnuts. Name the
>> smallest number that's greater than zero. Name the largest prime.
>> Demonstrate a lossless compression method that works for all data.
>> Display one single ounce of common sense, and one single milligram
>> of honesty to go with it.
>>
>> Nope, some things are just not possible.
>
>Right. Sure.
>
>Heavier than air flight.
>
>Electric motors without commutators.
>
>Communication without wires.
>
>A cure for smallpox.

No.

>Etc. Etc. ("everybody" knows these things are "impossible", right?)
>
>And speaking of numbnuts, invoking mathematics is idiocy, since your
>statements are entirely dependent upon the self-consistent system of
>mathematics being invoked.

No.

>For example in SOME systems parallel lines
>actually meet somewhere. And in MY system of mathematics the smallest
>number greater than zero is one! You'd better go back to just calling
>people "insane".
>
>Just use the "short form": "I'm a moron!"

You certainly are.

[hanis...@gmail.com]

"Unexplained Flying Objects (UFOs) In 1947, a rash of sightings of unexplained flying objects (UFOs) swept America. Although the newly formed U.S. Air Force was the primary investigator of these sightings, the FBI received many reports and worked for a time with the Air Force to investigate these matters. This release details the FBI’s role in investigating such reports between 1947 and 1954."




And you're telling me WHAT???? :D

[Bill Snyder]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 07:57:47 -0700 (PDT), hanis...@gmail.com
wrote:

> "Unexplained Flying Objects (UFOs) In 1947, a rash of sightings of unexplained flying objects (UFOs) swept America. Although the newly formed U.S. Air Force was the primary investigator of these sightings, the FBI received many reports and worked for a time with the Air Force to investigate these matters. This release details the
FBI’s role in investigating such reports between 1947 and 1954."
>
>
>
>
> And you're telling me WHAT???? :D

I'm telling you to fuck off and die.

[hanis...@gmail.com]

Yeah, sure :p

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics bja...@teranews.com <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> On 10/8/2012 7:19 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>> Then show us that everything's possible, numbnuts. Name the
>> smallest number that's greater than zero. Name the largest prime.
>> Demonstrate a lossless compression method that works for all data.
>> Display one single ounce of common sense, and one single milligram
>> of honesty to go with it.
>>
>> Nope, some things are just not possible.
>
> Right. Sure.
>
> Heavier than air flight.
>
> Electric motors without commutators.
>
> Communication without wires.
>
> A cure for smallpox.
>
> Etc. Etc. ("everybody" knows these things are "impossible", right?)

No, and to say that is puerile idiocy.

> And speaking of numbnuts, invoking mathematics is idiocy, since your
> statements are entirely dependent upon the self-consistent system of
> mathematics being invoked. For example in SOME systems parallel lines
> actually meet somewhere. And in MY system of mathematics the smallest
> number greater than zero is one! You'd better go back to just calling
> people "insane".

Puerile babble.

> Just use the "short form": "I'm a moron!"

No, you are just nuts.

[Painius]

Sorry, but there's really no difference whether a vehicle is on a
track or a road. The road can be treated effectively as a track, and
when a computer-driven car enters the "network", it will be nearly
impossible for an accident to happen. When they are thoroughly tested
and implemented, computer-driven cars will be the safest vehicles in
history.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"In school, you receive the lesson, and then you are tested; in real
life, you are tested first, and only then do you receive the lesson."

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:

> Sorry, but there's really no difference whether a vehicle is on a
> track or a road.

Sorry, yes there is.

Are you old enough to have a drivers license?

Have you ever driven a vehicle in rush hour traffic in a major population
center?

> The road can be treated effectively as a track, and

No, it can not.

A track physically prevents vehicles on other tracks from entering
your track.

A lane is a paint strip on a road.

> when a computer-driven car enters the "network", it will be nearly
> impossible for an accident to happen.

The operative word hear being "nearly".

This also assumes that ALL other vehicles on the road, every car, truck,
motorcycle, delivery van, etc., be computer contolled, which is highly
unlikely to ever happen.

FYI the average age of a car in the US is about 11 years and I often
see classics from the 20's and 30's on the road.

All it takes is one manually controlled vehicle making a 3 lane mad
dash for the exit ramp to bring everything to a halt.

> When they are thoroughly tested
> and implemented, computer-driven cars will be the safest vehicles in
> history.

Yep, and pigs will fly.

What is more likely to happen is that the first time something happens
on the road the CPU can't figure out is that either a massive crash
occurs or everything for miles around comes to a halt in a fail safe
mode.

[Painius]

Yes, paper airplanes are enigmas to some people. The invention of the
airfoil was to provide LIFT to overcome the WEIGHT in heavier-than-air
craft. Two other main factors are THRUST, which overcomes DRAG . The
paper airplane is a simple "projectile", like an arrow or a spear. A
paper airplane has nothing to give it lift except the thrust of the
toss. It's weight is very light, so if it is designed correctly, a
good forward thrust will propel it for several feet. Anyone who
played with paper airplanes as a child knows that even slight
variations in its design will determine if the projectile will go
straight or curve to the right or left.

The balsa plane is similar in terms of weight and lift, but very
different when it comes to thrust. Thrust is provided by the
unwinding rubber band as it spins the plane's propeller (which, by the
way, may be a type of airfoil). All the operator does to add lift to
the process is to point the nose of the plane upward and let the
thrust do the rest.

Again, the airfoil was invented to provide lift against the weight of
heavy aircraft. If we assume that a saucer would be heavier than the
air in our atmosphere, then it would need an airfoil arrangement to
provide lift. The standard saucer shape in the imaginings of sci-fi
writers and their fans does this nicely.

[Painius]

What you don't seem to be getting is the sci-fi aspect of this
conversation. Truth/reality can be so weird sometimes that writing
about it can seem to get pretty outta hand. But sci-fi writers, well,
*any* fiction writers, actually, must stay within the bounds of their
readers' belief/credibility systems, or their writings just won't seem
remotely believable to their readers.

In the case of the magnetic spaceship, the first time I saw any
semblance of this was in the Dick Tracy series. The spaceships were
not shaped like saucers, but they did use magnetic-field interaction
for propulsion. Others picked up on that to give a reason for the
round shape of a flying saucer. Wind a long conductor made of an
unknown alloy around the outer edge of the round saucer, turn the
flying saucer into a powerful inductor coil, and have it interact with
the magnetic field of the planet.

>> If the top of the saucer is built like the top of a wing, while the
>> bottom is flat like the bottom of a wing, you have a 360 degree
>> airfoil.
>
>You're better off with a long, skinny wing-shaped one.

Perhaps, but the long, skinny wing-shaped craft have a harder time
with those 90 degree turns. LOL

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/9/2012 9:20 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:

>> For example in SOME systems parallel lines
>> actually meet somewhere. And in MY system of mathematics the smallest
>> number greater than zero is one! You'd better go back to just calling
>> people "insane".
>>
>> Just use the "short form": "I'm a moron!"
>
> You certainly are.

I see you took my advice!

Anyway, HVAC agrees with ME, which means you lose and there is NO appeal
to any higher authority.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/9/2012 1:04 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics bja...@teranews.com<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> On 10/8/2012 7:19 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>>
>>> Then show us that everything's possible, numbnuts. Name the
>>> smallest number that's greater than zero. Name the largest prime.
>>> Demonstrate a lossless compression method that works for all data.
>>> Display one single ounce of common sense, and one single milligram
>>> of honesty to go with it.
>>>
>>> Nope, some things are just not possible.
>>
>> Right. Sure.
>>
>> Heavier than air flight.
>>
>> Electric motors without commutators.
>>
>> Communication without wires.
>>
>> A cure for smallpox.
>>
>> Etc. Etc. ("everybody" knows these things are "impossible", right?)
>
> No, and to say that is puerile idiocy.

So your assertion is that educated learned great men of science are
puerile idiots? Well that pretty much agrees with me. Only I used the
word "moron", but close enough!

>> And speaking of numbnuts, invoking mathematics is idiocy, since your
>> statements are entirely dependent upon the self-consistent system of
>> mathematics being invoked. For example in SOME systems parallel lines
>> actually meet somewhere. And in MY system of mathematics the smallest
>> number greater than zero is one! You'd better go back to just calling
>> people "insane".
>
> Puerile babble.

Go tell that to HVAC who agrees with me. Obviously you have no knowledge
of mathematics OR the scientific method. And like all morons, you are
sure the problem is that everyone ELSE is crazy but you are sane.

>> Just use the "short form": "I'm a moron!"
>
> No, you are just nuts.

QED.

[Bill Snyder]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:50:26 -0400, "bja...@teranews.com"
<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>On 10/9/2012 9:20 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>>> For example in SOME systems parallel lines
>>> actually meet somewhere. And in MY system of mathematics the smallest
>>> number greater than zero is one! You'd better go back to just calling
>>> people "insane".
>>>
>>> Just use the "short form": "I'm a moron!"
>>
>> You certainly are.
>
>I see you took my advice!
>
>Anyway, HVAC agrees with ME,

You think that only because you're illiterate.

>which means you lose and there is NO appeal
>to any higher authority.

Winners don't need to appeal.

Oh, and what about your promise to kill-file me, liar-tard?

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/9/2012 1:40 PM, Painius wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 18:55:13 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>>> Eventually it's the human drivers who will be
>>> not allowed on public streets!
>>
>> That's never going to happen.
>>
>>> Did you know that the Vancouver, BC subway trains have had no drivers
>>> for the last 25 years?

> Sorry, but there's really no difference whether a vehicle is on a
> track or a road. The road can be treated effectively as a track, and
> when a computer-driven car enters the "network", it will be nearly
> impossible for an accident to happen. When they are thoroughly tested
> and implemented, computer-driven cars will be the safest vehicles in
> history.

Give up, Painius. Jimp is an ignorant Luddite. The last time I heard
nonsense like jimp's it was "heavier than air craft will never fly!
You'll kill yourselves!" He's just updated it a hair. He doesn't know
that saying things are "impossible" just proves you are a moron. He
thinks every ELSE is nut! <snicker>

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics bja...@teranews.com <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> Give up, Painius. Jimp is an ignorant Luddite. The last time I heard
> nonsense like jimp's it was "heavier than air craft will never fly!

You really ought to see someone about those voices you are hearing.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics bja...@teranews.com <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> So your assertion is that educated learned great men of science are
> puerile idiots?

Nope, just babbling nut cases like you.

Trivial example; no one with the slightest sense or education has ever
said heavier than air flight is impossible as people have observed birds
doing it for millennia.

What was said in the late 19th century and early 20th century was that
manned heavier than air flight was impossible due to the lack of suitable
engines to make it work.

However, there was no theory at the time that said that such engines were
theoretically impossible for all time.

> Go tell that to HVAC who agrees with me.

So two lunatics in the asylum agree with each other...

[Painius]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 18:25:54 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but there's really no difference whether a vehicle is on a
>> track or a road.
>
>Sorry, yes there is.

Sorry, limp, no - essentially, there's not.

>Are you old enough to have a drivers license?

Are you senile enough to need a depends?

>Have you ever driven a vehicle in rush hour traffic in a major population
>center?

Yes, and computer-driven cars will eliminate rush-hour traffic.

>> The road can be treated effectively as a track, and
>
>No, it can not.

Yes, it can, limpy.

>A track physically prevents vehicles on other tracks from entering
>your track.

You don't know much about trains, do you. Tracks converge in many
places. With networked computer-driven vehicles, roads will become
just like tracks. Tracks without the rails. The rails will be
"invisible", but the effect will be the same.

>A lane is a paint strip on a road.
>
>> when a computer-driven car enters the "network", it will be nearly
>> impossible for an accident to happen.
>
>The operative word hear being "nearly".

And the operative word for the present situation is . . .?

>This also assumes that ALL other vehicles on the road, every car, truck,
>motorcycle, delivery van, etc., be computer contolled, which is highly
>unlikely to ever happen.

Why? If an auto can be equipped with a computer that is designed to
operate the car and to become a part of a network of computer-driven
vehicles, then why not ALL other vehicles, as well? Your statement
makes absolutely no sense.

>FYI the average age of a car in the US is about 11 years and I often
>see classics from the 20's and 30's on the road.

The change will not be gradual. That is why, even though the
technology is already out there, the decision-makers are dragging
their feet. It will be a difficult thing for people to accept. But a
way will be found to implement it to both save lives and to save
energy.

>All it takes is one manually controlled vehicle making a 3 lane mad
>dash for the exit ramp to bring everything to a halt.

When the computer network is implemented, ALL vehicles will either be
hooked into the network when driven, or they will be deadlined.

>> When they are thoroughly tested
>> and implemented, computer-driven cars will be the safest vehicles in
>> history.
>
>Yep, and pigs will fly.

LOL - you should enter the marathon...

http://www.fleetfeetcincy.com/training/flying-pig-marathon-half

Reminds me of the _WKRP in Cincinnati_ episode when Les thought
turkeys could fly and dropped them out of a helicopter.

>What is more likely to happen is that the first time something happens
>on the road the CPU can't figure out is that either a massive crash
>occurs or everything for miles around comes to a halt in a fail safe
>mode.

The latter will be the result of either a network failure or an
individual CPU failure. No crash of any kind would be expected to
happen; however, until the bugs are worked out, there is no way to
predict every single possibility.

That has never stopped progress before - slowed it down, maybe, but
never stopped it.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"The important thing is not to stop questioning."

[HVAC]

On 10/9/2012 3:50 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
> Anyway, HVAC agrees with ME, which means you lose and there is NO appeal
> to any higher authority.

You are correct, BJ. I am the ultimate authority...Except that I have
never agreed with you. How could I? You, much like Painus, won't
answer a direct question. Is it a belief in a god that makes you so
sneaky and forces you to couch all your answers?

[HVAC]

On 10/9/2012 4:14 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>
>> Go tell that to HVAC who agrees with me.
>
> So two lunatics in the asylum agree with each other...

Hey man... Leave me out of YOUR argument.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 18:25:54 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, but there's really no difference whether a vehicle is on a
>>> track or a road.
>>
>>Sorry, yes there is.
>
> Sorry, limp, no - essentially, there's not.

Yes, there is.

>>Are you old enough to have a drivers license?
>
> Are you senile enough to need a depends?

Nope, are you old enough to be out of diapers?

>
>>Have you ever driven a vehicle in rush hour traffic in a major population
>>center?
>
> Yes, and computer-driven cars will eliminate rush-hour traffic.

Idiotic nonsense, rush hour traffic is caused by the majority of people
going to and from work and roughly the same time.

Computer controlled cars would have no effect on people's work hours.

>>> The road can be treated effectively as a track, and
>>
>>No, it can not.
>
> Yes, it can, limpy.

No, it can not, child.

>>A track physically prevents vehicles on other tracks from entering
>>your track.
>
> You don't know much about trains, do you. Tracks converge in many
> places. With networked computer-driven vehicles, roads will become
> just like tracks. Tracks without the rails. The rails will be
> "invisible", but the effect will be the same.

Train track converge in a very limited number of places and are controlled
by a physical switch. A train can go many tens of miles in urban areas
without passing a switch and approaching hundreds of miles in rural areas.

Cars on roads will be changing lanes out of necessity every half mile or
so on freeways and every block on surface streets.

>>A lane is a paint strip on a road.
>>
>>> when a computer-driven car enters the "network", it will be nearly
>>> impossible for an accident to happen.
>>
>>The operative word hear being "nearly".
>
> And the operative word for the present situation is . . .?
>
>>This also assumes that ALL other vehicles on the road, every car, truck,
>>motorcycle, delivery van, etc., be computer contolled, which is highly
>>unlikely to ever happen.
>
> Why? If an auto can be equipped with a computer that is designed to
> operate the car and to become a part of a network of computer-driven
> vehicles, then why not ALL other vehicles, as well? Your statement
> makes absolutely no sense.

It takes a lot more than just a computer to make a computer controlled car.

It also takes a pile of sensors and electro-mechanical actuators that
do not exist in current cars and there is absolutely no standardization
in current cars that would enable adding such devices to current cars.

Each and every car make and model out there is unique.

>>FYI the average age of a car in the US is about 11 years and I often
>>see classics from the 20's and 30's on the road.
>
> The change will not be gradual. That is why, even though the
> technology is already out there, the decision-makers are dragging
> their feet. It will be a difficult thing for people to accept. But a
> way will be found to implement it to both save lives and to save
> energy.

Childish nonsense.

You are talking about a government mandate that would force the poor
driving decades old vehicles to spend major money that they don't have
on your wet dream.

That is never going to happen in the real world.

>>All it takes is one manually controlled vehicle making a 3 lane mad
>>dash for the exit ramp to bring everything to a halt.
>
> When the computer network is implemented, ALL vehicles will either be
> hooked into the network when driven, or they will be deadlined.

What network?

The cars you have been babbling about are autonomous and there is NO
network nor will there ever be such a network covering every dirt road
in the country.

>>> When they are thoroughly tested
>>> and implemented, computer-driven cars will be the safest vehicles in
>>> history.
>>
>>Yep, and pigs will fly.
>
> LOL - you should enter the marathon...
>
> http://www.fleetfeetcincy.com/training/flying-pig-marathon-half
>
> Reminds me of the _WKRP in Cincinnati_ episode when Les thought
> turkeys could fly and dropped them out of a helicopter.
>
>>What is more likely to happen is that the first time something happens
>>on the road the CPU can't figure out is that either a massive crash
>>occurs or everything for miles around comes to a halt in a fail safe
>>mode.
>
> The latter will be the result of either a network failure or an

There is NO network, moron, all these self driving cars are autonomous.

> individual CPU failure. No crash of any kind would be expected to
> happen; however, until the bugs are worked out, there is no way to
> predict every single possibility.

Who get sued when the CPU fails and wipes out a couple of kids?

> That has never stopped progress before - slowed it down, maybe, but
> never stopped it.

Potential liability has stopped MANY wet dreams.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/2012 4:14 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Go tell that to HVAC who agrees with me.
>>
>> So two lunatics in the asylum agree with each other...
>
>
> Hey man... Leave me out of YOUR argument.

You are replying to the wrong person, I wasn't the one that mentioned
you.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

You really need to read some history to keep from repeating the same
mistakes over again...only hoping this time things will be different.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/9/2012 4:57 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/9/2012 3:50 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, HVAC agrees with ME, which means you lose and there is NO appeal
>> to any higher authority.
>
>
> You are correct, BJ. I am the ultimate authority...Except that I have
> never agreed with you. How could I? You, much like Painus, won't answer
> a direct question. Is it a belief in a god that makes you so sneaky and
> forces you to couch all your answers?

If you are the "ultimate authority" then how can you be dead wrong so
often. This being only the latest example of me having to rub your nose
in the stink again!

You posted:

"On 10/9/2012 1:01 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>

> "And speaking of numbnuts, invoking mathematics is idiocy, since your
> "statements are entirely dependent upon the self-consistent system of

> "mathematics being invoked. For example in SOME systems parallel lines

> "actually meet somewhere. And in MY system of mathematics the smallest
> "number greater than zero is one! You'd better go back to just calling
> "people "insane".
>
> "Just use the "short form": "I'm a moron!"

"Agree. "

What do you say that word you wrote "Agree" means? I suppose you say it
means you have "never agreed with you".

Harlow I strongly urge you to see a competent physician for an exam for
"oldtimers disease". And wipe that stink off your nose! Dismissed.

Hint: This is the INTERNET, HVAC, not some secret gummint meeting.
Everything you type here is stored, saved and in the record. Duh.