High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 05:12 pm
@High Seas,
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0061%3Abekker%20page%3D1251b

and
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0062%3Abekker%20page%3D1251b
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2009 05:14 pm
@High Seas,
You appear to be easily miffed. Relax, my little quip was sent to George OB, not you. The fact that you corrected a quote in Greek is fascinating , since almost every other language is Greek to me, I will remain impressed.

Now where did you hop off the bus?
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 04:19 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

You appear to be easily miffed. Relax, my little quip was sent to George OB, not you. The fact that you corrected a quote in Greek is fascinating , since almost every other language is Greek to me, I will remain impressed.[...]

S'okay, Farmerman, I already knew the Greek alphabet (obviously) from mathematics, and figuring how many of their words have come down to us I decided to start with Homer and work my way through the thousand years between Homer and 0 AD. Little did I know a thousand years is a long way in any language, but they (the original Greeks) are completely fascinating from an AI point of view - they really DID have a word for everything.

It's a language of absolutely dazzling precision and beauty; certainly the most - mathematically speaking - elegant solution of phrasing any problem, or of stating its solution. In retrospect I'm glad I know their horrendously complex syntax, grammar, and quasi-endless vocabulary - but if I HAD known how much hard work would be involved BEFORE I started I would never had bothered. For even the fastest petaflop computers we better stick to basic English, but if only computers COULD be taught ancient Greek we would learn and accomplish so much more, imho.

Richard Feynman, a very brilliant man, taught himself ancient Greek for that very purpose, and so did many others - why not have EVERY concept we want to examine dealt with in a SINGLE term? The original Greeks' elegance in expression (mathematically) has never been surpassed, but remember that with elegance also come speed aka efficiency and that as speed becomes crucial e.g. with communications to the little Mars rovers (up to half an hour at the speed of light when Mars is on the other side of our sun) very many applications on which we depend for our wellbeing on our original planet will become essential to our continued existence as a civilized society. Long answer, but complete.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 03:36 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

I should add that a nuclear carrier can run at maximum speed indefinately - the reactors operate at constant temperature and are at their most efficient at maximum power. They are fuelled for the 50 year life of the ship with a significant reserve, so that isn't a consideration either. ..

Question: does all that massive power have to be absorbed by the carrier's own engines or could it, e.g., charge batteries of another craft drawing up alongside in a manner analogous to in-flight refuelling? This is very relevant to the new Swiss prototype you already know about:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18233-solarpowered-piloted-plane-makes-its-first-flea-hop.html
Quote:
...Runway tests in Dübendorf, Switzerland, this morning took the craft, driven by four electric propellers and 400 kilograms of batteries, to a speed of 37 kilometres per hour " just a little shy of the 45 needed for it to take off. When those tests went well, test pilot Markus Scherdel took Solar Impulse aloft for the first time....

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn18233/dn18233-1_300.jpg
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2009 03:49 pm
@High Seas,
The ship's propulsion plant yields 380,000 shaft horsepower. In addition its electrical power generating capacity is about 84 MWE. The catapults also use quite a lot of power, but only intermittently. The ships have just two reactors and are designed to have nearly full capability with only one operating - as a result with two reactors on line they are loafing along at full speed.

There's no built in capability to transfer power to ships alongside; though it would be possible (albeit inconvenient) to transfer electrical power, within the above limits) to a ship alongside or, in port, across the pier.

The new design for carriers will have electromagnetic catapults instead of the current steam powered ones.

There is already a project underway for a pilotless carrier aircraft. (Sad - I thought we could never be replaced.)
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 02:00 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

The ship's propulsion plant yields 380,000 shaft horsepower. In addition its electrical power generating capacity is about 84 MWE. ....

That's more than enough to simultaneously refuel any number of solar / batteries airplanes such as the Piccard team just finished testing in Switzerland (pic above). Instead of decomissioning older carriers, couldn't they be moored somewhere and be used as floating power stations? Piccard hopes to get his prototype into industrial-scale production within a few years, and his batteries can probably be improved and become lighter; no replacement of pilot by robot in sight there, the plane as currently designed is aerodynamically very unstable - my impression at least.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 02:03 pm
@paps,
Make sure your airplane has a fuel pump and is not using any sort of a motorcycle style gravity fuel feed...
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 10:52 pm
@High Seas,
It's possibe to use them as you described, but I wouldn't hold my breath. In the first place there aren't any nuclear carriers (except for Enterprise) near the end of their design lives. In the second, the Navy isn't at all interested in reminding the public that it operates floating nuclear powerplants (without containment buildings) from major U.S. harbors. Finally it doesn't (with good reason) trust (or respect the competence of) the civilian regulators. The U.S. Navy has long been the world's largest operator of nuclear powerplants. It has never had a reactor accident or a major release, and it wants to keep it that way... and out of the public eye.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 02:47 pm
@georgeob1,
I was afraid you would say that, because the fact is I've been working on the logistics of monetizing assets now in the hands of public entities - state parks, university systems, freeways, prisons etc - in order to reduce public debt and actuarial / budget deficits, and keep running into interference no matter what asset I name as candidate for sale/rental/sale with leaseback/collateral for non-recourse loan/whatever. Well OK, the carriers just got moved to the bottom of my list. How about nuclear subs? Offshore gas liquefaction is possible but requires a lot of power generation - floating terminals can operate much more cheaply if no pipelines are required.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 03:08 pm
@High Seas,
I suspect the same reservations would apply. The Navy is VERY secretive about its nuclear plants generally and its submarines in particular. The reasons involve both the typical government brueaucratic issues (the government only rarely knows the real cost of anything it does or builds, and in the few instances in which it really knows, is usually very reluctant to tell the truth), and some particular preoccupations and concerns about submarines and their reactor designs (profoundly different from commercial PWRs in terms of fuel design and rreactor physics). Finally, they absolutely do not trust the competence, integrity or reliability of their own civilian regularory agencies. (The spirit of Rickover lives on.)
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 03:38 pm
@georgeob1,
Thank you very much. I suspected you would say that, especially after I remembered the picture of Rickover getting carted off still in his armchair by 2 workmen when he refused to move his desk to whatever new building he was being assigned to. OK, I'll move to a non-Navy asset class!
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 05:17 am
@High Seas,
Rickover was an interesting guy. If we ever meet I'll tell you some stories about my interviews with him. Agile mind, wide ranging interests, combined with a very pragmatic view of humanity and how to make things work.

One of the several intriguing questions he asked me was to tell him the story That Ivan told his brother, Alyosha in "The Brothers Karamazov" .... and "tell me what it means", Rickover insisted. (I suspected Rickover saw himself as the Cardinal Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor. However, even there, he revealed some interesting contradictions.)

He was a bit hard to love, but he ran a little corner of our government with truly unparalleled excellence for 26 years. When he finally left they worked hard to change nothing... and pretended, as with El Cid, that he was still in the saddle.

Unlike most people, he made a real difference.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 05:36 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

.......the government only rarely knows the real cost of anything it does or builds, and in the few instances in which it really knows, is usually very reluctant to tell the truth....


George - I'd like permission to quote this phrase (not citing you as a source) in the report I'm putting together. I'll e-mail you Saturday with details (am overseas right now and have little confidence in their internet connections). Btw, you'll be interested in this article from the new Economist - and I hope you'll think some more about using Navy ships as mobile power stations: if the neighborhood gets too rough, can't you always unplug whomever you're tethered to and sail off into the wild blue yonder?!
Quote:
THE air around Bagram airfield, the main American base in Afghanistan, is thick with the smell of jet fuel, the roar of aircraft taking off on bombing missions and the constant drone of electricity generators. Outside the ramparts, a snakelike convoy of brightly coloured lorries waits to unload fuel hauled from Pakistan and Central Asia. These are the modern equivalents of the pack mules that once carried military supplies"much of it fodder for the beasts themselves. The British army calculates that it takes seven gallons of fuel to deliver one gallon to Afghanistan.

Modern warfare would be impossible without vast quantities of fossil fuel. It is needed to power everything from tanks to jets to electricity generators that run the communications networks on which Western armies depend.....

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15048783&source=hptextfeature
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 06:04 pm
These people are too important for me.

I wish they could get over it though.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 06:15 pm
@spendius,
Perhaps you would be kind enough in future to make wishes in silence? If your good fairy posts here, nobody has noticed her.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2009 06:19 pm
@High Seas,
If I made wishes in silence it would be of no benefit to those on whose behalf I had wished.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » inverted flight
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/03/2020 at 04:20:27