Apple stand
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@topspin it wasn't me that suggested putting 24 cylinder engine in Polo, was it?
You can get 7 cylinders in a VW bug, the 'in' might be debatable though:
-
-
@cvi said in Apple stand:
@TimeBandit said in Apple stand:
Once the wings are ripped off, you can't take off, so, in a sense, it's more secure
Not sure about that. 22k pounds of force is 98k Newtons. A Cessna 150 weighs around 500kg from what I could find. Seems like you could take off if you pointed that thing in the right direction.
It weighs less without the wings. But you're going to have to relocate the fuel tank, which is usually inside the wings.
-
@acrow said in Apple stand:
@cvi said in Apple stand:
@TimeBandit said in Apple stand:
Once the wings are ripped off, you can't take off, so, in a sense, it's more secure
Not sure about that. 22k pounds of force is 98k Newtons. A Cessna 150 weighs around 500kg from what I could find. Seems like you could take off if you pointed that thing in the right direction.
It weighs less without the wings. But you're going to have to relocate the fuel tank, which is usually inside the wings.
I don't think Cessnas are wet-wing designs, but I don't know that much about them. (I've seen kits that make the wings easy to remove so you can put the Cessna on a trailer, tow it with a pickup, and store it at home instead of renting a hangar. That would be harder if they were full of fuel.)
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@dkf said in Apple stand:
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
Though if we were to continue this software-car analogy, supercars being hard isn't a problem with power - it's a problem with UX.
Or a problem with wannabe power users…
Technically it's also about user experience...
Exactly, those wannabe have no experience driving a supercar
-
@acrow Fair point.
From what I could find a typical Cessna 150 has somewhere around 40 gallons of fuel. The question is really much of that remains once you've hit the afterburner and your wings are about to rip off. May not need them to hold any fuel at that pointer any longer... (A quick search didn't really give me any numbers on the fuel consumption of the afterburner.)
-
@cvi said in Apple stand:
(A quick search didn't really give me any numbers on the fuel consumption of the afterburner.)
Very High™.
-
@mott555 said in Apple stand:
@cvi said in Apple stand:
(A quick search didn't really give me any numbers on the fuel consumption of the afterburner.)
Very High™Adequate.BTFY
-
@cvi said in Apple stand:
@acrow Fair point.
From what I could find a typical Cessna 150 has somewhere around 40 gallons of fuel. The question is really much of that remains once you've hit the afterburner and your wings are about to rip off. May not need them to hold any fuel at that pointer any longer... (A quick search didn't really give me any numbers on the fuel consumption of the afterburner.)
I'm going to need an explanation for this joke, since the only afterburner I know of has to do with jet engines, not propeller ones. The only real one anyway; I don't think you meant the rocket-assisted biplane in Sonic The Hedgehog.
-
@acrow said in Apple stand:
I'm going to need an explanation for this joke, since the only afterburner I know of has to do with jet engines, not propeller ones.
This thread was derailed into a discussion over the pros and cons of retrofitting a Cessna 150 with the afterburning turbofan engine found on the F/A-18 Super Hornet. There are still a lot of outstanding questions on this issue, and an unfortunate lack of experimental evidence.
-
@mott555 said in Apple stand:
There are still a lot of outstanding questions on this issue, and an unfortunate lack of experimental evidence.
Agreed. At this point we essentially need a Cessna 150, a GE F414 engine, some fuel and a whole lot of ducktape.
-
@cvi Sadly, geaviation.com isn't an ecommerce site and they don't even have a price list for their engines.
-
@cvi said in Apple stand:
@acrow Fair point.
From what I could find a typical Cessna 150 has somewhere around 40 gallons of fuel. The question is really much of that remains once you've hit the afterburner and your wings are about to rip off. May not need them to hold any fuel at that pointer any longer... (A quick search didn't really give me any numbers on the fuel consumption of the afterburner.)
From https://defenseissues.net/2014/12/06/fighter-aircraft-engine-comparision/:
F414-400 engine consumes 4855 kg/h at (maximum?) non-afterburner thrust, 18112 kg/h with afterburner.From https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/aircraft-fact-sheets/cessna-150:
Fuel capacity with long-range tanks (varies with model): 38–42 gallons (143.8–159 liters).Jet fuel has a density of 0.804 kg/l (at 15 °C), so 159 liters weighs 127.8 kg. At 18112 kg/h, the maximum size long-range tanks hold enough fuel to power the engine for 25.4 seconds. (You could run it for 94.8 seconds if you forgo the afterburner, but where's the fun in that?)
-
@HardwareGeek So in addition to finding ourselves a Cessna 150 and a GE F414, we also need to acquire a KC-135 to keep our contraption in flight.
-
@cvi said in Apple stand:
@mott555 said in Apple stand:
There are still a lot of outstanding questions on this issue, and an unfortunate lack of experimental evidence.
Agreed. At this point we essentially need a Cessna 150, a GE F414 engine, some fuel and a whole lot of ducktape.
INB4 :time_for_some_science_pony.jpg:
-
@mott555 Some additional calculations:
Cessna 150 has a MTOW of 726 kg. The F414-400 engine weighs 1110 kg. Combined, 1836 kg.
v = F * t / m = 97900 N * 25.4 s / 1836 kg = 1354 m/s = 1632 kn (Mach 3.88). This slightly exceeds the Cessna 150's VNE of 140 kn.
Or, looking at it from a different angle, VNE will be exceeded about 1.35 seconds into the "flight" and the aircraft will disassemble itself shortly thereafter.
The above calculations ignore aerodynamic drag (because it's difficult to calculate and I don't have the information needed to do so) which really isn't negligible under these circumstances — if for no reason other than it's one of the main forces tending to rip the Cessna's wings off, the 5.4 G acceleration being the other one.
-
@mott555 said in Apple stand:
@acrow said in Apple stand:
I'm going to need an explanation for this joke, since the only afterburner I know of has to do with jet engines, not propeller ones.
This thread was derailed into a discussion over the pros and cons of retrofitting a Cessna 150 with the afterburning turbofan engine found on the F/A-18 Super Hornet. There are still a lot of outstanding questions on this issue, and an unfortunate lack of experimental evidence.
It’s not derailed. Apple provides a (very expensive) afterburner card, so it’s perfectly on topic.
-
@topspin said in Apple stand:
so it’s perfectly on topic.
What you're saying then is that we must try harder to derail the topic?
-
But if we get too off-topic, we're just leaving us open to attacks, which we've seen all too often in these situations. Our intent is to stay here, not to go anywhere. If you are not on one of our board, you will keep an open mind. The purpose of the forum is to help you learn the skills you need to create an effective business, and you are certainly responsible for your own actions. No matter what, your comments, suggestions, and ideas make their way to our management for approval.
-
-
@levicki said in Apple stand:
@topspin said in Apple stand:
I've never heard of that happening. I've heard of this:
Better burned then dead:
Lightning strke:
Interesting that both those articles are about a lightning to headphone charging adapter, which wouldn't be an issue if it came with a 3.5mm jack, because the phone would probably explode rather than direct all the energy to the hapless user. So, I guess the moral of that story is don't remove the 3.5mm jack?
I'm failing to see how this helps your point at all.
(aside from the lightning strike, which, frankly, is an entirely different discussion, and the likelihood of that happening is so low that it's essentially irrelevant)
-
@mott555 said in Apple stand:
@cvi Sadly, geaviation.com isn't an ecommerce site and they don't even have a price list for their engines.
Did you ask if they provide samples for technical evaluation? Since the test will be a short one, maybe we could even get a loaner?
-
@loopback0 said in Apple stand:
@levicki said in Apple stand:
Ruby on Rails topic
The correct category for those is the bin.
We're trying to put them there, but the request to move them is taking forever…
-
@acrow said in Apple stand:
Did you ask if they provide samples for technical evaluation?
I approve of the use of plural "samples" in the above sentence.
-
@mott555 said in Apple stand:
But if we get too off-topic, we're just leaving us open to attacks, which we've seen all too often in these situations. Our intent is to stay here, not to go anywhere. If you are not on one of our board, you will keep an open mind. The purpose of the forum is to help you learn the skills you need to create an effective business, and you are certainly responsible for your own actions. No matter what, your comments, suggestions, and ideas make their way to our management for approval.
The Transformer thread is
-
@admiral_p said in Apple stand:
It used to be true back in the day, but we're talking about twenty or thirty years ago.
I would go so far as to say that even this is questionable. They convinced the right people in the right industries at the right time to use their computers in order to create the illusion of being better. Or really to create the illusion that if you use our computers you will be a great graphics artist or sound engineer. Even though you could and can still do all of these tasks with almost any computer given adequate hardware and software. It's all marketing on their part.
Graphics artists use Macs because other graphics artists use Macs. Same for audio recording. However, being a software engineer and dabble in recording (not professionally, but I do have a home studio) I know better. People are buying Apple computers because of the fantasy. Even these new desktops that start at $6k US...all they are really doing is cramming the most expensive (publicly available) components in a case and slapping the Apple logo on it.
EDIT: $6 --> $6k
-
@CodeJunkie said in Apple stand:
Even these new desktops that start at $6 US...
Now that is a cheap desktop!
-
@CodeJunkie What's even funnier about all this is that the software people tend to love using on their Macs (Photoshop and ProTools)...aren't even made by Apple and are also available Windows.
-
@dkf said in Apple stand:
@CodeJunkie said in Apple stand:
Even these new desktops that start at $6 US...
Now that is a cheap desktop!
Whoops
-
@CodeJunkie said in Apple stand:
Even though you could and can still do all of these tasks with almost any computer given adequate hardware and software. It's all marketing on their part.
I don't know if it's still the case, but back in the mid 2000s and earlier, the Adobe suite worked much better on Mac than the PC version.
-
@CodeJunkie it was kind of true as, among consumer OEMs, Apple was apparently the only one who provided half-decent typography and stuff. Audio was first done on stuff like Ataris (MIDI especially), Amigas (where also video editing was strong), but in the mid '90s the main vendors (eg. Digidesign) chose to target Apple exclusively. There was no ProTools for Windows back then. I can't remember exactly why (I was too young at the time) but that's how it was.
-
@admiral_p said in Apple stand:
@CodeJunkie it was kind of true as, among consumer OEMs, Apple was apparently the only one who provided half-decent typography and stuff. Audio was first done on stuff like Ataris (MIDI especially), Amigas (where also video editing was strong), but in the mid '90s the main vendors (eg. Digidesign) chose to target Apple exclusively. There was no ProTools for Windows back then. I can't remember exactly why (I was too young at the time) but that's how it was.
Exactly. I was going to mention Atari and Amiga, but yeah, they probably made deals to convince companies to target their OS only I would imagine.
-
@hungrier said in Apple stand:
@CodeJunkie said in Apple stand:
Even though you could and can still do all of these tasks with almost any computer given adequate hardware and software. It's all marketing on their part.
I don't know if it's still the case, but back in the mid 2000s and earlier, the Adobe suite worked much better on Mac than the PC version.
It's entirely possible this is true, but still has nothing to do with their hardware being better.
-
@CodeJunkie No, nothing to do with the hardware being better, but that hardware was required to use the Mac software.
-
@CodeJunkie Amiga was a very good system at a very good price with a relatively good OS and tools for the time which was completely destroyed by short-sighted management. What a pity.
-
@admiral_p said in Apple stand:
@CodeJunkie Amiga was a very good system at a very good price with a relatively good OS and tools for the time which was completely destroyed by short-sighted management. What a pity.
Makes sense. Atari made a lot of bad decisions too. I'm sure this helped Apple at the time. They swooped in as these companies were going down.
-
-
Download Steem or Hatari and have fun!
-
@Zerosquare I know what emulators are, but thanks anyway
-
@CodeJunkie said in Apple stand:
Graphics artists use Macs because other graphics artists use Macs. Same for audio recording.
This isn't much different to why offices used Windows. Other offices used Windows, and MS Office, so to transfer files easily between them they all used Windows and Office.
-
@Seppen said in Apple stand:
@CodeJunkie said in Apple stand:
Graphics artists use Macs because other graphics artists use Macs. Same for audio recording.
This isn't much different to why offices used Windows. Other offices used Windows, and MS Office, so to transfer files easily between them they all used Windows and Office.
Well...I would say this is for more (or at least tends to be) practical reasons, such as cost, ease of maintenance and what not. Having a homogeneous network is easier on IT (which counts toward cost and what not) ... but their aren't illusions of grandeur. Bank employees don't think they are going to be really bad ass bank employees by using a computer running Windows or OS/2...they don't give a shit. They just want their bank software to do what it's supposed to do.
It's not to say that IT people don't do the same type of stuff though ... look at Linux users after all :)
-
@CodeJunkie said in Apple stand:
@admiral_p said in Apple stand:
It used to be true back in the day, but we're talking about twenty or thirty years ago.
I would go so far as to say that even this is questionable. They convinced the right people in the right industries at the right time to use their computers in order to create the illusion of being better.
Not true for desktop publishing. Apple teamed up with the fledgling Adobe to embrace PostScript for laser printers back in the 80s, and thus desktop publishing with scalable fonts was born. Because of this the software companies focused on the Mac for a long time, with Windows versions of their software lagging behind by years and often lacking features. Apple supported this by including features like color management years before Windows had them. It also helped that Macs had AppleTalk (for networking) and SCSI (for adding external drives and other devices) built-in starting in the mid 80s.
Nowadays there's no (or not much) difference, but it took a while to get here.
-
@TimeBandit said in Apple stand:
Atari ST
It's not an ST, but I have an Atari 800 sitting on my front room table right now...
-
@CodeJunkie three words: tiling window managers.
-
@CodeJunkie (and another six words: "btw I use Arch").
-
@cvi said in Apple stand:
@mott555 said in Apple stand:
There are still a lot of outstanding questions on this issue, and an unfortunate lack of experimental evidence.
Agreed. At this point we essentially need a Cessna 150, a GE F414 engine, some fuel and a whole lot of ducktape.
Where's Adam Savage when you need him...
-
@dcon said in Apple stand:
@cvi said in Apple stand:
@mott555 said in Apple stand:
There are still a lot of outstanding questions on this issue, and an unfortunate lack of experimental evidence.
Agreed. At this point we essentially need a Cessna 150, a GE F414 engine, some fuel and a whole lot of ducktape.
Where's Adam Savage when you need him...
Discovery Science apparently, running over paper people with rocket segway.
-
@Gąska said in Apple stand:
@dcon said in Apple stand:
@cvi said in Apple stand:
@mott555 said in Apple stand:
There are still a lot of outstanding questions on this issue, and an unfortunate lack of experimental evidence.
Agreed. At this point we essentially need a Cessna 150, a GE F414 engine, some fuel and a whole lot of ducktape.
Where's Adam Savage when you need him...
Discovery Science apparently, running over paper people with rocket segway.
I just happened to catch that one the other day... That's what made me think of him.
-
-
@mott555 said in Apple stand:
@cvi Sadly, geaviation.com isn't an ecommerce site and they don't even have a price list for their engines.
Price per engine was $4,422,004 in a recent (December 2018) procurement action.
Sounds like an ideal experiment for crowdfunding.