1movies Not Working

[Jessica Wade]

Im working with some Python Scripts just to practice with MongoDb, which is running on my local machine. I have populated my mongoDb instance with one database "moviesDB", which contains 3 different collections:

The point is that the aggregate function on the movies collection retrieves NOTHING, whereas it really should, since I tried this query on the MongoShell and it worked just fine. Here's how the mongoDB shell-query looks like:

Ive been watching Macross Zero "thanks to the guys on the board here that told me about it" and is it just me or does the VF-0 seem more manuverable than the VF-1? Maybe its just the way it was animated but looking back on DYRL it looks like the 0's transformed faster and had better handling capabilities. Please correct me if im wrong but thus far im really getting into the Zero story line.

Lets remember that DYRL was animated back in '84, so it may seem as if it was a bit slower than the kick ass digital animation that we are currently seeing in Zero. Of course, the digital is more consistent and smoother. Also, check out that kick ass dogfight between Max and Millia in DYRL. That was pretty damn impressive and still holds my vote as best on screen battle. Glad to hear you are enjoying Zero... so am I!

Second, the VF-0 uses regular fueled exhaust engine which just sucks out gas as fast as a Hummer. While the VF-1 uses a thermo nuclear turbine engine which will last longer and is designed for space combat at its best.

Transformation speed in reality really wouldn't be seconds that's almost impossible in real terms for now if anything could transform. But a good reason for fast transformation is animation mistakes aren't apparent.

Yup, we've talked about this in several threads. Not only has animation technology advanced, but styles develop and change. I wouldn't draw any conclusions about how maneuverable the two fighters are based on the animation. Unless and until we see a VF-1 in M0, or Kawamori makes a direct comparison, it's probably more useful to look at the specs for the two aircraft.

Hikuro. i can see where the engines are able to operate in space and use a different fuel but just because something is smaller doesnt always mean its better. That would be like me comparing the tomcat to the hornet. Granted the tomcat is bigger and faster with a greater range than the hornet but the hornet can carry more missiles but doesnt have the range of an F-14.

I do however understand your point that with a smaller airframe and stronger better engines than the 0's the 1's have a greater range and can probably handle better than their older counterparts. Im gonna check out the info you guys gave me and see what the differences are. hmm kinda interested in seeing a thermonuclear engine myself..wonder if they use plutonium as the power source... Again thanks gentlemen for the info.

Beltane70, to be precise, plutonium is formed by bombarding uranium with neutrons. In other words, it's not a fission product of uranium, as it has a higher atomic number. But it is correct as you say that plutonium can be a byproduct of uranium-based reactors, because some of the uranium in the reactor gets hit by stray neutrons and turns into plutonium. (Here's one description of what goes on.) Plutonium can also be used to create a self-sustaining fission reaction, both in bombs and reactors.

And that is not the most intersting possibility for fission nuclear reactions. Take for instance pair production where a high energy gamma/photon passes near a large atomic mass like a uranium nucleus. The gamma becomes an electron and a positron (aka anti-electron) When the positron finds another electron, the two slam together making two lower energy gammas whose total energy equals the energy of the original high energy gamma.

you guys totally missed out on the whole engine achilles heel. Much like the TF30 powered F-14A',s the VF-0 is prone to engine stalls which could in teh tomcat result in loss of control and into a flat spin. Possible in VF-0 i imagine as the whole premise was REALLY mirroring the F-14A program. For those who do not know, the F-14A was set to get the ATE engine being developed with the air force bu thte navy backed out aznd the F-110 GE engines were not fitted until the middle of the tomcats operational career.

VF-0 is more proimitive looking though a lot of newbies say its the other way around thinking its way more advanced. Sory but the only advanced thing is the HTS that targets the missles on Roy's helmet. Other than that It is big, bulky, bulges hanging everywqhere, not good drag wise.

Tomcat could outspeed hornet and take the fight on its own hands, hornet cant do that unless it gets the turkeyt in real real real low speed. ITs got a lot of drag working against it. Besiudes tomcat is the BETTER PLANE. LOL

Generally, what I've seen is something works like a normal jet engine when it's in the air, except that instead of creating heat by burning jet fuel, it uses the heat of the nuclear reaction. In space, it still works in a similar fashion but instead of suckin in air through the fans/compressors, it injects reaction mass (which is stored on board) into the engines, which heat it into a jet.

There a few ways this could work... I mean... the process of turning the Hydrogen into a plasma might correspond to the "combustion/compression" stage in a jet engine. When in air-gilping mode... the engine might turn the air into a plasma.

I mean... it would have too, because the VH-1 is an air gulper when in the atmosphere. It has massive intakes, and it's engines are called Thermonuclear Jets. SO, at least in the air it can't work like a thermonuclear rocket does... which is what that article is about.

If it's in space, it must act as a rocket. Can't have jet engines in space. Jets work because of the AIR. No air=no jet. Taking the air away from a jet is like taking the water away from a ship's propeller---you can spin it as fast as you like, but it's not going to do anything...

Since Valkyries are stated to have Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), I think this means they have magnetohydrodynamics propulsion, or Ion Drive. Basically it's like a normal rocket except the fire goes out really faster.

Besides, the Compendium says pair annihilation is used in what in Macross is called "thermonuclear reaction", so I think anti-matter must be somewhere, even though the possibilities are many. Anti-matter could be used simply to catalize a normal micro-fusion/fission.

I don't know if this is reference to my post or others', but I don't think anyone is saying that it's working as a turbojet in space. I meant that the reaction mass (whatever it is--water, kerosene, liquid hydrogen, etc.) gets heated by the fusion engine, expands, and is ejected out the back of the engine. The intakes/fans do nothing in this situation, although perhaps the compressors still compress the reaction mass before heating.

In space (IMHO) it really needs nothing more than the combustion chamber. And is then a pure and simple rocket. (With a rather exotic fuel source and exotic exhaust composition, but still a basic rocket)

i love macross...but there's not much point in rationalizing how their nuclear engines work, even in SF theory. I mean, even in space, the valks used runway to take off (which was thankfully fixed in DYRL) which was kind of annoying. In general though, macross is pretty good in terms of realism for a 80's cartoon.

What is REALLY annoying is that even to this day, we still see huge explosions with fireballs in space (fire burns in vacuum??). But then again, 99% of movie and TV get something as simple as a gunshot sound wrong, so what am I complaining

But there's no combustion, as far as I can tell. It is most definitely a rocket, but not one as we commonly think of rockets. Again, the mechanism I envision is storing reaction mass in the wings, which is then pumped--and possibly compressed--into a heat chamber analagous to but not the same as a combustion chamber (because nothing is getting oxidized). The reaction mass expands and is expelled out the engine nozzles, producing thrust.

This operation isn't much like a conventional jet engine, but it is similar in ways to the atmospheric mode of the Valk's engine. The similarity is that both processes involve moving reaction mass through a heat chamber, where it heats up, expands, and is expelled out the back. The difference is that in one case, the reaction mass comes from the atmosphere, while in the other case it's stored on board.

That's the "similarly" I was talking about. It's a given that we're not talking about a jet as soon as you have "instead of sucking in air through the fans/compressors, it injects reaction mass (which is stored on board) into the engines".

A basic problem, IMHO, with some of the official info and fan-speculation is that it is often claimed the Valk's engines have afterburners. I can't figure out how that would work in a fusion-powered engine, as there's nothing to combust. I suppose that maybe, a combustive fuel like kerosene could be injected into the exhaust to achieve a greater output than normal, but that seems a little weird. Another common idea that doesn't sit well with me is the notion that the fusion reaction product is itself ejected from the engines to produce thrust.

That would be very weird. Afterburners inject fuel into the stream to burn up the excess oxygen that wasn't consumed during combustion. Injecting fuel into a plasma stream really doesn't do anything.

3a8082e126