I recall a classic wet start but of a very different type.

In the late 1960s Hunters with the 12x series engines were suffering from a turbine failure problem, more on that below.

One T8 returned from a sortie and the pilot snagged it for engine vibration. The CPO I was working with on the Hunter section of Heron Flight at the time decided to give it a run and check how the vibration felt through the seat, doing this one could assess if the vibration was due to a problem with the aux-gearbox drive or something else.

Chiefy went out ahead of me whilst I collected a couple of CO2 extinguishers. Whilst I was walking towards the aircraft I was astonished, and somewhat concerned, to see and hear the familiar cartridge start. The a/c had just been refuelled and the customary half oil drum on a castored trolley used to catch any overflow and drips was STILL UNDER the a/c. The fuel vent being adjacent to the starter vent.

As the engine wound up a cloud of vaporized AVCAT was sucked forward and straight into the intakes. At which point I saw Chiefie’s head jerk up as he noticed the JPT (term still used in those days) shoot up and then he caught my frantic signals to cut as I rushed in with a CO2. Fortunately there was enough fuel in the bin to absorb all heat by vaporisation so there was no ignition.

The turbine problem was the result of the nozzle guide vane retaining ring cracking and allowing the guide vanes to slip onto the rotating assembly. RR brought out a mod to fix this.

One aircraft came back with vibration and although the engine was pos-mod I decided, once it had cooled, to go up the jet pipe and use the custom set of hockey stick go/no-go gauges to check the clearance between the assemblies. This require much rotation of the engine with frequent use of gauges and making careful notes in this dark and smelly hole. I discovered, in fact I heard the rubbing, that this engine’s turbine was in trouble. I reported this to the powers and they suggested I do it again as Rolls informed us when told that this was impossible on a post-mod engine. The upshot was that Rolls rep’s came down whilst we in the meantime removed the tail of the aircraft and the outlet casing from the turbine so that we were directly on it. We then saw the cracks in the nozzle guide vane retaining rings which allowed the movement. The engine was rejected of course and Rolls had another headache.

On another occasion whilst doing a hockey stick check I had placed a rating at the foot of the cockpit ladders to prevent anybody getting in the cockpit whilst I was up the pipe. Unfortunately this rating, without a word to myself, decided to wander off to the heads (toilets to you ‘lubbers), allowing a greenie (electrician) to get into the cockpit and carry out an igniter check. Boy, that is when I fully understood why they were called ‘bangers’. 😀

On the issues of improving the gamma of certain areas of an image and of carrying out sharpening last and taking due care to not irreversibly degrading the only copy, the original, of an image I wonder if shooting RAW and using processing software such as Lightroom may help as a head start.

Lightroom, like other software of its ilk and I use this program having invested in Pixmantec’s Rawshooter which Adobe bought up, alters images during editing by using metadata files containing a record of any changes worked. The only time the changes are irretrievably applied is at the point of export as JPEG or TIFF and these changes are only applied to the exported image and not the original which is preserved so that a very different looking image could be created if one so chooses but once again without irreversibly altering the original.

Lightroom has many subtle controls for revealing detail in shadows, and with digital it is a common axiom to underexpose by a half stop or so. BTW this is easily fed in quickly with the dial control on the left of a Dynax 7, 7D, both of these cameras have an equally useful flash compensation dial immediately below on the same spindle, the Sony Alpha 100 is not quite so convenient here as I think is true of other digital SLRs well worth exploring this.

If highlights are blown then Lightroom has the ability to reclaim some detail here if not too severe, plus many other useful gamma and colour adjustment capabilities.

I apologize to those familiar with such software and also to those who may prefer an alternative.

I cannot stretch to Photoshop CS, why do Adobe have to make it so darned expensive not everybody can quickly recoup the cost of this, but the Lightroom and Elements route suffices for me. To be sure some times I miss the use of masks but a surprising amount can be done with elements when required, Elements 1 at that as I dislike the resource hogging extras with later versions which intercept any memory device and thus interfere with import of other data types.

My new laptop became almost unusable when I put a later Elements on it last year, with a dual core processor and 2GB RAM, and after finding a helpful O’Reilly page which informed on how to circumvent some of Elements resource intrusions I finally gave in, uninstalled Elements and finding this did not cure all issues re-installed XP Pro. Fortunately I had purchased a self install version of XP Pro and it was early days with this computer.

I do like the look of the Sony Alpha, though. It is just whether or not I can get one, and a suitable lens. within a £650 budget. Someone posted their Sony results on here a while ago, and I was very impressed with the pictures.
Robbo.)

I have one of those and it works well with a 70-300mm Minolta D series lens, these lenses can be found for as little as £100. I have also used with some success a 70-300mm Sigma EX Macro, the macro on this is useful when I am not carrying my Minolta 100m Macro D. This Sigma I purchased for under £100 so either of these will fit within the budget.

I tend to go for regular 35mm lenses rather than the more restrictive lenses aimed at the APS C format because I still use film.

There is a forum for Alpha and Minolta users at:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/

Sounds like ‘toss bombing’ which is more usually associated with the Bucaneer, but it wasn’t done inverted! There is a proper term for this low level technique, it aided in getting the aircraft away from the blast area as quickly as possible as it pulled up into the loop and headed off from wence it came.

Over-the shoulder I think is a term for one technique and LABS another, I think earlier one. The difference was in the point in the pull up in a half loop that the bomb was released. All a bit hazy now but I have a book around here where the author, an FAA test pilot, describes the techniques, which one of several such books I am not certain ATM.

I recall the grins on our faces on Ark many years ago when a Sverdlov shadower that had been creeping up near and nearer on our port quarter suddenly sheered off as the splash target was straddled by a group of 1000lbers from a Buc’ doing a practice. We on the flight deck at the time were aware of the bombing exercise in progress and had spotted the twinkle in the air over on our port bow as the Buc’ pulled up so we were waiting for the splash.

You haven’t replied to my rebuttal link discussing Milankovitch cycles, for one.

Well as it turns out I was already aware of this line of thinking and that other mechanisms are now in charge of climate change, modifying the Milankovich cycle effects. This is what happens when organisms on earth add their increasing output of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) to bring on warming. Indeed this is an area covered by Tim Flannery in The Weather Makers.

Now although I have continually mentioned CO2, I have been fully aware of other GHGs such as methane which is a far more potent GHG than CO2 by a factor of about 7.5 (Houghton 1997), although currently in smaller quantities because it breaks down faster than CO2 but when it does so it also produces CO2. I will hasten to add that faster here is a relative term where methane breaks down in a decade or so whereas CO2 can linger around for over a century.

As ice recedes then the permafrost thaws releasing large quantities of methane and CO2 which becomes a reinforcing mechanism for warming. Another large sequester of methane is in the form of methane hydrates which are contained by high pressure and low temperature in sediments on the ocean floor. There is estimated that there is over a trillion tons of carbon locked up in methane hydrates and that there is enough of the latter off the coasts of Florida and Georgia to keep the US in energy for 200 years.

All it takes is something like a tectonic event to cause a rapid release of methane to the surface. Indeed, methane hydrates have been released by offshore oil drilling rigs causing fires on the sea surface.

Ocean current changes where warm water is forced lower under layers of cold could trigger a release. Hence climate change will suddenly kick up a gear causing other mechanisms to release increasing levels of GHGs until another tipping point is reached and the process accelerates further. These are not wild guesses either for things like this has happened in the past as is evidenced by the geological record. Hence my suggestion on Corefield’s ‘Architects of Eternity’.

It has been discovered, by analysis of the proportions of particular carbon and oxygen isotopes (the difference between data from sediments of ODP Holes 689 and 690) that a methane release from such methane hydrates occurred at the P-E (Paleocene-Eocene) boundary. Such large volumes of methane would produce a considerable forcing effect particularly as a by-product of methane reaction with other molecules is CO2. A double-whammy if you like.

I am not disputing that over the history of the earth that other factors, such as solar output have had an effect on the earths climate, no sensible and aware person would. It is just that right now it is the effect of GHGs that is the overriding factor.

I have been looking at this issue for many years now, and indeed have referred back to some of my USENET posting of 2002. Over the years I have studied books on quantum physics and organic chemistry in order to get a handle on the mechanisms. Also books covering the science behind evolutionary theories which includes geology as well as physics and chemistry.

But then I have in earlier postings given you clues on all of this and therefore did not see your ‘rebuttal’ as needing an answer for I had already answered it.

However, now you have begun raising interesting points instead of whinging about being insulted.

On which score; my allusions to your sarcasm was at first aimed solely at your use of that smiley ‘Roll Eyes(sarcastic)’ which I thought unwarranted under the circ’s and have explained why. Megalith when pointing out that you lacked understanding was not insulting your intelligence which is quite a different thing. But maybe this is down to the nuances of language use each side of the big pond – ‘…two peoples separated by a common language’ and all that.

Oh, so I need to investigate your side of the story but you don’t need to look at mine? What’s the point of this entire debate then?

Now I have looked at your side, or the little that you have presented so far and answered it which is a great deal more than you have done WRT my pointers as is evident from the content of your postings.

BTW Thank you for displaying the definition of ‘boorish’. From that list it is very easy to see why your unwarranted use of sarcasm, notwithstanding your latest explanation which does not stand up to scrutiny, was boorish.

Keep digging.

You mean as opposed to the other legion of biased accounts that show up almost weekly in the news media?

Well yes.

Why?

Because Wiki’ has provided links with their articles which can be used as jumping off points to sources of reviewed scientific analysis which other forms of media rarely do.

I wasn’t referring to you, you’re not the person to whom my sarcastic reply was directed.

I appreciated that at the time. You were using sarcasm against a perfectly innocuous statement, by megalith: ‘Firstly SOC you are showing a fundemental lack of understanding of the processes we are talking about, both specific to green house gasses and more generally the scientific prosess.’ which is not insulting your intelligence but questioning the basis of your arguments.

The cry of ‘insult’ where there is none is often seen on USENET and now here, probably to draw attention away from the weakness of the plaintiff’s arguments. Rather like the use of sarcasm without foundation as seems to be a habit of yours. This has nothing to do with any so called ‘party line’ being just good manners to abstain from such boorish behaviour.

And at any rate what is wrong with the concept of an orderly, civil debate? I was willing, and then I was chastized for not toeing the acceptable party line. Believe whatever you want to, but recall that I have the right to do the same without being the target of inappropriate or uncalled-for criticism.

See above.

So on that note:

:rolleyes:

Yawn!

Just an FYI, they are still moving.

My use of ‘moved’ in, ‘For instance ocean currents were very different as land masses moved across the face of the earth…’does not imply, nor should be taken to imply, that I consider continental drift to have stopped. Please consider the context of my words.

Happy now? It seems to me like you don’t want to accept the data that is being presented, which, if you had even bothered to read the article, NASA climatologists have admitted is accurate as they have admitted there was a flaw in their system. Are you more credible than NASA climatologists?

You didn’t notice the areas of higher-than-average temperature have greatly subsided in the last graph when compared to the first?

What you are failing to appreciate is that the last graph that you presented covers a period which is a subset of the first so trying to compare the two is like comparing apples with oranges – one gets confused. And you are.

As for the Telegraph report on this then it is somewhat more rounded than the Times/Fox version.

Now, notwithstanding your other remarks which are pointless to debate point by point until you have done more background reading.