dark light

PeeDee

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,026 through 2,040 (of 2,115 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: General Discussion #313795
    PeeDee
    Participant

    I’m not sure I’d put a telly in a conservatory. Our conservatory gets very hot in the summer (40-50°C).

    Is that a Glass one?
    Mine, the roof is opaque white plastic, triple layer stuff. 1.5″ thick. My South facing wall is solid Brick (It’s a boundary and I can’t put a window in it). It’s supposed to keep that sort of heat out.

    We’ve gone over the top with the building regs, I’ve got 3 inches of foam in the South Wall, the stub walls that are under the windows and within the concrete floor. Interor walls are all Thermolites. This lot should also aid temp. regulation.
    It’s a single pitch roof up against the house, the highest point (House) is about 9 foot, so it’s airy as well. I will put a thermostat in there and keep a watching brief, especially as we are expecting a scorcher of a summer. (The Frogspawn is in the middle (Over the deeper water hence last longer in a drought), the Frogs long term forecasting is better than the Met office). And I know the Spawn will be gone by Summer.

    Come September, the Bold words will be used against me!

    in reply to: TV and built in DVD? #1899121
    PeeDee
    Participant

    I’m not sure I’d put a telly in a conservatory. Our conservatory gets very hot in the summer (40-50°C).

    Is that a Glass one?
    Mine, the roof is opaque white plastic, triple layer stuff. 1.5″ thick. My South facing wall is solid Brick (It’s a boundary and I can’t put a window in it). It’s supposed to keep that sort of heat out.

    We’ve gone over the top with the building regs, I’ve got 3 inches of foam in the South Wall, the stub walls that are under the windows and within the concrete floor. Interor walls are all Thermolites. This lot should also aid temp. regulation.
    It’s a single pitch roof up against the house, the highest point (House) is about 9 foot, so it’s airy as well. I will put a thermostat in there and keep a watching brief, especially as we are expecting a scorcher of a summer. (The Frogspawn is in the middle (Over the deeper water hence last longer in a drought), the Frogs long term forecasting is better than the Met office). And I know the Spawn will be gone by Summer.

    Come September, the Bold words will be used against me!

    in reply to: General Discussion #313960
    PeeDee
    Participant

    Personally, I think he just wants us all to know that he’s having a conservatory done. :p

    Going down from a 42 incher to a “Normal” telly? I’ve tried. It was like looking at my watch.
    16″ TV will be way too small for that room. I’ll be sat 9 feet away. Also, the sound off these small tellies sounds like a rip-rap in a tin in a dustbin.

    But, back to the Q, are the built-ins any good?

    in reply to: TV and built in DVD? #1899231
    PeeDee
    Participant

    Personally, I think he just wants us all to know that he’s having a conservatory done. :p

    Going down from a 42 incher to a “Normal” telly? I’ve tried. It was like looking at my watch.
    16″ TV will be way too small for that room. I’ll be sat 9 feet away. Also, the sound off these small tellies sounds like a rip-rap in a tin in a dustbin.

    But, back to the Q, are the built-ins any good?

    in reply to: A Corporate Quartet (MAN 21/3/2010) #443354
    PeeDee
    Participant

    Falcon 3 holer lifting out of LHR.
    Colours are real, sharpness suffers as it’s only 500px wide (You can see al the detail on the FJF on the Raw image). 450D with standard lens.
    http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u24/PDH999/Falcon-over-767-wing.jpg

    in reply to: General Discussion #314360
    PeeDee
    Participant

    Stunning images – thanks for posting!
    You can zoom in on practically any image and the same pixel-type artifacts show up. Must be something to do with how they process the images…

    I did this. I downed 4 at random (OK, not random….ones that looked pretty!), dragged them into Photoshop CS4 and did the darkening / contrast routine. And shock-horror I saw civilisations! Pixeltown, surrounded by Raster River. It lead to Bayer City and Mount Foveon. I could see a car registration plate, 4800 DPI. The Gaussians at number 54 were making a lot of noise.

    in reply to: Life on Mars? #1899422
    PeeDee
    Participant

    Stunning images – thanks for posting!
    You can zoom in on practically any image and the same pixel-type artifacts show up. Must be something to do with how they process the images…

    I did this. I downed 4 at random (OK, not random….ones that looked pretty!), dragged them into Photoshop CS4 and did the darkening / contrast routine. And shock-horror I saw civilisations! Pixeltown, surrounded by Raster River. It lead to Bayer City and Mount Foveon. I could see a car registration plate, 4800 DPI. The Gaussians at number 54 were making a lot of noise.

    in reply to: General Discussion #314653
    PeeDee
    Participant

    The only paper I trust, The Daily Mash, hasn’t got hold of this yet. I can’t wait.

    in reply to: Times Online – What were they thinking? #1899594
    PeeDee
    Participant

    The only paper I trust, The Daily Mash, hasn’t got hold of this yet. I can’t wait.

    in reply to: General Discussion #314655
    PeeDee
    Participant

    Give a woman a mans job………

    in reply to: If a museum isn't for education what is it for? #1899602
    PeeDee
    Participant

    Give a woman a mans job………

    in reply to: Stolen Image Found On Airline Website … What to do? #446460
    PeeDee
    Participant

    Softly softly aproach, ask them to credit you.

    On a side, I’m always surprised to see the quality of images on this site. If it’s on the web, it’ll get downed. The qlty on here is big enough to down and print at A3 (I’ve done this with permission of owner – it was for my work and I needed to see some details of an empennage).
    For web use I never upload a pic more than 500 pix. wide. That size fits on a 4;3 screen (We don’t all have widescreen) and the qlty is good enough for ppl to see but bad enough to make it downsafe. (New word I just invented – it has my copyright!)

    in reply to: General Discussion #315495
    PeeDee
    Participant

    This is old, but Gold!
    ————————————–

    ACCIDENT REPORT ON “ICARUS – THE FIRST FLIGHT”

    Accident Report (abstract)

    Site of accident: 5 miles north west of Crete

    Date of Accident: Approx 250 BC

    Aircraft Type: Homebuilt, Man-Powered (ultralight class)

    Injuries: 1 (fatal)

    Investigator: Glutinous Maximus (Head of Air Ops, Mediterranean Sector)

    Date of Report: 1/1/0001

    Details of Accident

    Considerable delay has occurred between the accident and the investigation, so the following notes detail the facts that have been established. The aircraft was a homebuilt ultra-light of original design, one of two constructed. The aircraft was constructed from a range of novel composite materials. The accident occurred on the first flight of the type. The pilot was the co-designer of the aircraft, and at the time of the accident had a total time of 25 minutes (all on type). At the time of the flight the wind was 180/3kts and cloud cover was 0/10 at all altitudes.

    There are no records of the pre-flight inspection, indeed the indications are that none was performed. On the day of the accident witnesses report the aircraft to have successfully taken off from Crete, the pilot having announced the intention of making for Greece (although no flight-plan had been filed). The flight was in company of another aircraft of the same type flown by the co-designer and father of the pilot. The second aircraft was also on its maiden flight, and its pilot also had no experience on the type prior to the flight. Approximately 25 minutes into the flight, some 5 miles north west of Crete, the aircraft was observed to climb to a considerably higher altitude than its partner. At this point it appeared to suffer a substantial structural failure followed by a departure from controlled flight; the aircraft entered a dive from which it did not recover before impact with the sea.

    There was no post-impact fire. No search was attempted due to lack of facilities, but the circumstances of the accident suggest that the pilot would have died on impact. The second aircraft proceeded successfully to its destination.

    Analysis of Accident

    Despite the elapsed time and total absence of surviving physical evidence it is felt that sufficient information exists to infer the sequence of events and the cause of the accident.

    The novel composite structure of the aircraft was known to be the subject of physical restrictions on operating temperature. These restrictions had been carefully explained to the pilot before the flight. When the pilot climbed to a higher altitude the levels of ambient solar radiation probably led to these temperature restrictions being exceeded, resulting in a thermal degradation of the basic structure.

    A progressive failure would have occurred, initial delamination of the upper skin material would have been be followed by a compressive failure of the upper mainspar. Brazier forces would then have extruded the internal wax core material leading to a catastrophic failure of the entire primary structure. This theory would help to explain why the second aircraft (at a lower altitude) experienced no such failure.

    CAA Comment

    This accident was clearly caused by an inexperienced pilot paying scant regard for the operational envelope of the airframe. Although the novel materials used in the airframe had strict limitations, these were well documented and explained to the pilot. It is regarded as significant that, despite the known thermal limitations of the materials used, no attempt had been made to protect the structure from infra-red radiation.

    A layer of aluminised film over the outside of the structure would probably have prevented the accident by extending the operational envelope of the airframe. In view of this, and other, design deficiencies in the aircraft it is recommended that Form 100 signatory approval be withdrawn from this manufacturer.

    It is further felt that from today (1/1/01) onwards no pilot should be permitted to attempt primary training flights as solo P1 on an experimental type. If this regulation had been in force at the time, Mr Icarus would probably not have attempted the flight.

    EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT

    The following eyewitness statement was made by Asticles, who was standing on the beach approximately 10 leagues away at the time of the accident. He reported seeing Greek Fire hit Icarus. Icarus then climbed an additional 150 rods before descending in a ball of fire.

    Greek Navy Ship “The Amphora” in the vicinity reported that it was patrolling the area which is a known route for the Olive Oil smuggling trade. Testacles, the captain of The Amphora reported that ship had nothing to do with the incident and that all Greek Fire projectiles on board were accounted for.

    ESTATE OF ICARUS AGAINST DAEDALUS ET AL

    (Vince Brannigan)
    Complaint in Product Liability , Negligence and Unlawful Detention

    Summary

    The deceased, Icarus, was killed while attempting to escape an unlawful imprisonment ergo Defendant King Minos is strictly liable for this death. The deceased was killed flying a defective homemade aircraft, designed and produced by the defendant Daedalus. The defendant’s claim of the plaintiffs causing his own death are not supportable.

    The defendant, Daedalus, an expert inventor and engineer, affixed feathers to the wings with heat soluble wax. Alternative glues were known to the builder. Daedalus failed to consider alternative, more heat-tolerant, glues.

    The warning given to the operator Icarus, was inadequate given the age of the youth. In particular, the warning claimed to be given was “Icarus, my son, I charge you to keep at a moderate height, for if you fly too low the damp will clog your wings, and if too high the heat will melt them. Keep near me and you will be safe.” This warning is in vague terms and failed to specify that melting the wings would lead to the death of the minor operator. Given the youthful age of the operator, it is critical that a warning be given in the clearest and most explicit language.

    The only testimony supporting the claim that an oral warning was given is the self serving testimony of the negligent inventor. In any case a warning is inadequate if a safer non heat sensitive glue is available There was no clear definition of “moderate”, “too high” or “too low” and the operator’s experience was insufficient for him to determine the optimum altitude.

    A water landing was a reasonably anticipated outcome of even a successful flight. No provision was made for a safe water landing. No safety equipment or training was provided.

    Sources indicate that, notwithstanding the claim of instant injury, Icarus in fact drowned, Bullfinch states: While his mouth uttered cries to his father it was submerged in the blue waters of the sea which thenceforth was called by his name. His father cried, “Icarus, Icarus, where are you?” At last he saw the feathers floating on the water, and bitterly lamenting his own arts, he buried the body and called the land Icaria in memory of his child.

    The claims that flying higher caused the sun to melt the wax is based on “junk science” inadmissible in this litigation. There is no evidence at all that radian solar energy increases at the heights involved in this matter and if anything the atmosphere cools as the flyer ascends

    Given these facts plaintiffs estate demands 1,000,000 gold pieces in damages. If Icarus is proven to be the employer of Daedalus, as well as father to the youth, a further sum may be payable due to Employer’s Liability. There may also have been a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

    in reply to: Best Aviation Jokes #1900097
    PeeDee
    Participant

    This is old, but Gold!
    ————————————–

    ACCIDENT REPORT ON “ICARUS – THE FIRST FLIGHT”

    Accident Report (abstract)

    Site of accident: 5 miles north west of Crete

    Date of Accident: Approx 250 BC

    Aircraft Type: Homebuilt, Man-Powered (ultralight class)

    Injuries: 1 (fatal)

    Investigator: Glutinous Maximus (Head of Air Ops, Mediterranean Sector)

    Date of Report: 1/1/0001

    Details of Accident

    Considerable delay has occurred between the accident and the investigation, so the following notes detail the facts that have been established. The aircraft was a homebuilt ultra-light of original design, one of two constructed. The aircraft was constructed from a range of novel composite materials. The accident occurred on the first flight of the type. The pilot was the co-designer of the aircraft, and at the time of the accident had a total time of 25 minutes (all on type). At the time of the flight the wind was 180/3kts and cloud cover was 0/10 at all altitudes.

    There are no records of the pre-flight inspection, indeed the indications are that none was performed. On the day of the accident witnesses report the aircraft to have successfully taken off from Crete, the pilot having announced the intention of making for Greece (although no flight-plan had been filed). The flight was in company of another aircraft of the same type flown by the co-designer and father of the pilot. The second aircraft was also on its maiden flight, and its pilot also had no experience on the type prior to the flight. Approximately 25 minutes into the flight, some 5 miles north west of Crete, the aircraft was observed to climb to a considerably higher altitude than its partner. At this point it appeared to suffer a substantial structural failure followed by a departure from controlled flight; the aircraft entered a dive from which it did not recover before impact with the sea.

    There was no post-impact fire. No search was attempted due to lack of facilities, but the circumstances of the accident suggest that the pilot would have died on impact. The second aircraft proceeded successfully to its destination.

    Analysis of Accident

    Despite the elapsed time and total absence of surviving physical evidence it is felt that sufficient information exists to infer the sequence of events and the cause of the accident.

    The novel composite structure of the aircraft was known to be the subject of physical restrictions on operating temperature. These restrictions had been carefully explained to the pilot before the flight. When the pilot climbed to a higher altitude the levels of ambient solar radiation probably led to these temperature restrictions being exceeded, resulting in a thermal degradation of the basic structure.

    A progressive failure would have occurred, initial delamination of the upper skin material would have been be followed by a compressive failure of the upper mainspar. Brazier forces would then have extruded the internal wax core material leading to a catastrophic failure of the entire primary structure. This theory would help to explain why the second aircraft (at a lower altitude) experienced no such failure.

    CAA Comment

    This accident was clearly caused by an inexperienced pilot paying scant regard for the operational envelope of the airframe. Although the novel materials used in the airframe had strict limitations, these were well documented and explained to the pilot. It is regarded as significant that, despite the known thermal limitations of the materials used, no attempt had been made to protect the structure from infra-red radiation.

    A layer of aluminised film over the outside of the structure would probably have prevented the accident by extending the operational envelope of the airframe. In view of this, and other, design deficiencies in the aircraft it is recommended that Form 100 signatory approval be withdrawn from this manufacturer.

    It is further felt that from today (1/1/01) onwards no pilot should be permitted to attempt primary training flights as solo P1 on an experimental type. If this regulation had been in force at the time, Mr Icarus would probably not have attempted the flight.

    EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT

    The following eyewitness statement was made by Asticles, who was standing on the beach approximately 10 leagues away at the time of the accident. He reported seeing Greek Fire hit Icarus. Icarus then climbed an additional 150 rods before descending in a ball of fire.

    Greek Navy Ship “The Amphora” in the vicinity reported that it was patrolling the area which is a known route for the Olive Oil smuggling trade. Testacles, the captain of The Amphora reported that ship had nothing to do with the incident and that all Greek Fire projectiles on board were accounted for.

    ESTATE OF ICARUS AGAINST DAEDALUS ET AL

    (Vince Brannigan)
    Complaint in Product Liability , Negligence and Unlawful Detention

    Summary

    The deceased, Icarus, was killed while attempting to escape an unlawful imprisonment ergo Defendant King Minos is strictly liable for this death. The deceased was killed flying a defective homemade aircraft, designed and produced by the defendant Daedalus. The defendant’s claim of the plaintiffs causing his own death are not supportable.

    The defendant, Daedalus, an expert inventor and engineer, affixed feathers to the wings with heat soluble wax. Alternative glues were known to the builder. Daedalus failed to consider alternative, more heat-tolerant, glues.

    The warning given to the operator Icarus, was inadequate given the age of the youth. In particular, the warning claimed to be given was “Icarus, my son, I charge you to keep at a moderate height, for if you fly too low the damp will clog your wings, and if too high the heat will melt them. Keep near me and you will be safe.” This warning is in vague terms and failed to specify that melting the wings would lead to the death of the minor operator. Given the youthful age of the operator, it is critical that a warning be given in the clearest and most explicit language.

    The only testimony supporting the claim that an oral warning was given is the self serving testimony of the negligent inventor. In any case a warning is inadequate if a safer non heat sensitive glue is available There was no clear definition of “moderate”, “too high” or “too low” and the operator’s experience was insufficient for him to determine the optimum altitude.

    A water landing was a reasonably anticipated outcome of even a successful flight. No provision was made for a safe water landing. No safety equipment or training was provided.

    Sources indicate that, notwithstanding the claim of instant injury, Icarus in fact drowned, Bullfinch states: While his mouth uttered cries to his father it was submerged in the blue waters of the sea which thenceforth was called by his name. His father cried, “Icarus, Icarus, where are you?” At last he saw the feathers floating on the water, and bitterly lamenting his own arts, he buried the body and called the land Icaria in memory of his child.

    The claims that flying higher caused the sun to melt the wax is based on “junk science” inadmissible in this litigation. There is no evidence at all that radian solar energy increases at the heights involved in this matter and if anything the atmosphere cools as the flyer ascends

    Given these facts plaintiffs estate demands 1,000,000 gold pieces in damages. If Icarus is proven to be the employer of Daedalus, as well as father to the youth, a further sum may be payable due to Employer’s Liability. There may also have been a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

    in reply to: General Discussion #315498
    PeeDee
    Participant

    I stop about every 3 hours. For a pee or a coffee or both.
    Like you, the pee becomes too hard to hold, the organs begin to weaken. “If it’s not dried up it leaks”

    Also, at my stops, I get 50 feet of bog roll and clear the M/w grunge off the headlights/rear lights and the parts of the windscreen the wipers don’t get. I don’t see anybody else doing that.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,026 through 2,040 (of 2,115 total)