Sunday, March 22, 2009
[early mist] and the borderline of reality
Glancing outside the window at 05:04 on Thursday, it was a real Holmes scene – mist enveloping the street lamps, dull yellow glow on the pavement below [wish it were cobblestoned and a first hansom cab would clatter by].
Between two views, one of the sea and one of the street, lies an old brick building with the glow of far off street lamps silhouetting the cobblepot chimneys above wet slate roofs.
This is the England of the storybooks.
Appropriate scene to write of the people behind the coming troubles. It doesn’t matter what I write or Sonus or any blogger, if the reader has a mindset which precludes belief.
My mate is a good case in point.
He’s read most of what I’ve written politically and interprets it in terms of his background reading and intuition, which is quite pragmatic and worldly. His visiting would comprise DK, Theo, Wat Tyler and so on. So when I start writing of banking cabals and the Bilderbergers or of Christianity, he tunes out.
Somewhere inside, he tells himself we can’t know, therefore best not to worry about it and I can’t blame him for that. With an uncanny grasp of the issues of day to day life, seeing a system, for example and able to foresee, quite accurately, future problems in that system, his is a hands-on world and he excels in that world. He thinks laterally and finds solutions; his is a different slant.
Mine has been a long journey, part of it in the metaphysical, which is no less real once you’ve been there and so my eyes see it a bit differently, taking on board his views, with which I concur but also others as well.
When you put absolutely no chains on what you’re prepared to consider might have elements of truth to it, you start to develop a filtration system as well, a kookiness control which, in the end, filters out the true nutters and catches, like a receiving dish, small nuances hidden within the static. Then you yourself appear, to others, to be off the planet but actually what you are doing is investigating, investigating, investigating, travelling down paths many don’t wish to go, all in the interests of finding out.
This is the scientific method – considering any statement, however outrageous, whoever made it and testing it for corroboration, reading the debunking first to get one’s bearings and then looking at the argument.
In this, my mate actually agrees. He asks me if I know why he’s against the death penalty. Answer – because we can’t definitely know the guilt or innocence of the person on that specific crime, however bad he is in general terms.
So, in a similar spirit, I consider the following statements about Them:
Now I didn’t say I believed any of that. I just said that I considered it, as I would anything else you cared to offer evidence for. If you write on your blog that there are wormholes, portals, that there is such a thing as nanobot technology – well, it needs to be considered. If you say that cloning a human embryo is possible, well, why not? Why would there not be? Because my mind can’t encompass it? Not a good enough reason in my book.
If you take the six branches of learning mentioned in the quote, then Sonus’s articles fall into the economic branch and explain, quite cogently, what is actually happening in the world of money, the nuts and bolts of it, so to speak. That is as far as most people, within their area of expertise, are prepared to go. Fair enough. Brown and Obama fit into that scenario and the crimes of the former are mindboggling in their audacity and in the British public’s failure to see them, despite the fiskings by many fine bloggers.
Staying for a moment in the world most people can mentally handle, what of Common Purpose? Why would the ODPM be setting up, through an appalling person, Julia Middleton, a network of people who were ‘prepared for leadership’ within their regions? Now even CP admits that that is what they’ve been doing, pan-Europe.
Why? Why the need to place these people within regional assemblies? Even the average Brit remembers the regional assembly attempt.
Why the need? What sort of ‘leadership’ are they actually preparing for? It’s a simple enough question. Why the cloak and dagger? Why don’t they come out and state what they teach at their schools?
My mate suddenly says and Wolfie would surely concur, that these people will not succeed because they can’t even agree amongst themselves. Wolfie says I’m paranoid. My mate says that they’re all jockeying for prime position in this brave new world and there is ample evidence that he’s right. Just look at Merkel’s positioning of Germany and France’s refusal to let Germany become ascendant, e.g. in Airbus.
My mate continues that the recruiting in the past decade, in this new world of worthless degrees and NVQs, even to be a street sweeper, has meant that overqualified mediocrities with no hands-on ability are occupying all the key echelons.
I add the corollary … hence the data losses, the government department bungling, the gravy trains, the marginalization of people who actually do have the experience and talent.
Perhaps that’s just sour grapes on my part though. LOL.
Between two views, one of the sea and one of the street, lies an old brick building with the glow of far off street lamps silhouetting the cobblepot chimneys above wet slate roofs.
This is the England of the storybooks.
Appropriate scene to write of the people behind the coming troubles. It doesn’t matter what I write or Sonus or any blogger, if the reader has a mindset which precludes belief.
My mate is a good case in point.
He’s read most of what I’ve written politically and interprets it in terms of his background reading and intuition, which is quite pragmatic and worldly. His visiting would comprise DK, Theo, Wat Tyler and so on. So when I start writing of banking cabals and the Bilderbergers or of Christianity, he tunes out.
Somewhere inside, he tells himself we can’t know, therefore best not to worry about it and I can’t blame him for that. With an uncanny grasp of the issues of day to day life, seeing a system, for example and able to foresee, quite accurately, future problems in that system, his is a hands-on world and he excels in that world. He thinks laterally and finds solutions; his is a different slant.
Mine has been a long journey, part of it in the metaphysical, which is no less real once you’ve been there and so my eyes see it a bit differently, taking on board his views, with which I concur but also others as well.
When you put absolutely no chains on what you’re prepared to consider might have elements of truth to it, you start to develop a filtration system as well, a kookiness control which, in the end, filters out the true nutters and catches, like a receiving dish, small nuances hidden within the static. Then you yourself appear, to others, to be off the planet but actually what you are doing is investigating, investigating, investigating, travelling down paths many don’t wish to go, all in the interests of finding out.
This is the scientific method – considering any statement, however outrageous, whoever made it and testing it for corroboration, reading the debunking first to get one’s bearings and then looking at the argument.
In this, my mate actually agrees. He asks me if I know why he’s against the death penalty. Answer – because we can’t definitely know the guilt or innocence of the person on that specific crime, however bad he is in general terms.
So, in a similar spirit, I consider the following statements about Them:
[They] have SIX branches of learning, and the spiritual (where the
sacrifices are done) is only ONE part of what they do. I was in Sciences, and
used to make fun of people who specialized in spiritual. Yes, everyone has to go
to spiritual rituals during certain high days, but I tried to stay as far from
it as I could …
The Celtic branch of spiritual believes that power is
passed at the moment between life and death … Opening portals and dimensions: I
know, this sounds like stuff from a sci-fi film, but these people really believe
that there are other spiritual dimensions, and that to pass into them, first a
major sacrifice is done to "open a portal" …
We occasionally had to "put
down" these training failures, by using a lethal injection of air, or insulin.
The person was then set up in a "fatal crash" or "fire" to dispose of the body.
Any failures are heavily punished, to say the least. One of my jobs was
teaching younger trainers the masking effects of hypnotic drug combinations, and
how to recognize subtle clues of distress.
The Phoenix is one of their
highest military and spiritual symbols. If you see a German eagle, too, this is
a huge sign. Certain companies will use a phoenix as their logo, especially red
on black, or the reverse, this is a huge sign … The Star of David, believe it or
not, is one of the highest … symbols, with a circle around it. Called "the great
seal of Solomon" it is used at the highest ceremonies … Earth, water, and fire
are used in a lot of ceremonies … "The Fifth Element" movie was based on it.
Stopping pornography and child prostitution and drug smuggling and gun
running would take a huge chunk out of their profits … Why isn't child
pornography stopped? We have the evidence, law enforcement knows it exists, yet
it is a multi-billion dollar industry. HOW do these people "hide" from justice
and capture? Why don't the police stop them? Because these people aren't stupid.
They work under secrecy. They change locations frequently, and kill those who
talk to law enforcement. Bribes and other means are used to cover their tracks,
and they hire excellent lawyers.
There are children as young as three
and four being used in pornographic films, beaten black and blue if they refuse
to comply. To see a slightly older child with an electric dog collar around its
neck, shocked when it tries to "escape" and treated as an animal, to the
laughter of the adults and older children around it, these are the pictures that
any survivor … holds in his heart …
My younger sister remembers being
tied up on a stone altar at the age of 3, with a gag in her mouth, and being
raped. She also remembers our paternal grandmother taking her to friends, who
used her sexually at the ages of 3 to 5. She became an alcoholic at age 13,
after trying to commit suicide 7 times by age 12. My older brother has NO
memories of ANYTHING AT ALL before age 20, his life is a complete blank. He does
believe that our father was a perverse and strange man.
I am a
professional writer in the medical field, was a registered nurse for 18+ years,
and currently work as an ESL teacher, health educator, and freelance author
…
Now I didn’t say I believed any of that. I just said that I considered it, as I would anything else you cared to offer evidence for. If you write on your blog that there are wormholes, portals, that there is such a thing as nanobot technology – well, it needs to be considered. If you say that cloning a human embryo is possible, well, why not? Why would there not be? Because my mind can’t encompass it? Not a good enough reason in my book.
If you take the six branches of learning mentioned in the quote, then Sonus’s articles fall into the economic branch and explain, quite cogently, what is actually happening in the world of money, the nuts and bolts of it, so to speak. That is as far as most people, within their area of expertise, are prepared to go. Fair enough. Brown and Obama fit into that scenario and the crimes of the former are mindboggling in their audacity and in the British public’s failure to see them, despite the fiskings by many fine bloggers.
Staying for a moment in the world most people can mentally handle, what of Common Purpose? Why would the ODPM be setting up, through an appalling person, Julia Middleton, a network of people who were ‘prepared for leadership’ within their regions? Now even CP admits that that is what they’ve been doing, pan-Europe.
Why? Why the need to place these people within regional assemblies? Even the average Brit remembers the regional assembly attempt.
Why the need? What sort of ‘leadership’ are they actually preparing for? It’s a simple enough question. Why the cloak and dagger? Why don’t they come out and state what they teach at their schools?
My mate suddenly says and Wolfie would surely concur, that these people will not succeed because they can’t even agree amongst themselves. Wolfie says I’m paranoid. My mate says that they’re all jockeying for prime position in this brave new world and there is ample evidence that he’s right. Just look at Merkel’s positioning of Germany and France’s refusal to let Germany become ascendant, e.g. in Airbus.
My mate continues that the recruiting in the past decade, in this new world of worthless degrees and NVQs, even to be a street sweeper, has meant that overqualified mediocrities with no hands-on ability are occupying all the key echelons.
I add the corollary … hence the data losses, the government department bungling, the gravy trains, the marginalization of people who actually do have the experience and talent.
Perhaps that’s just sour grapes on my part though. LOL.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
[hats] don't leave home without one
Nobody should leave home without a hat. They define us, protect us, keep the rain off us but which to choose? You could start downmarket, with a leather cap:
... or try an Akubra, Brit style:
Failing that, you can try it Aussie style:
... or American. For some people, the hat is them:
You don't even need a hat - Tess sports her own 'non-hat' design here:
... and this scruff, Nureyev, opts for the beanie or toque which has seen better days:
Of course, the trilby and its cousins are a step up in the right direction:
... but to really cut a dash, the bowler with traditional uniform:
... and not so traditional might be your thing.
Please don't wear the apple to the front though. It's meant to hang elegantly from the rear brim:
Some prefer the historic touch:
... or the dashing sheikh:
... but all black, I'm afraid, is strictly non-u:
Wide-brimmed hats are always fashionable either for him:
... her:
... or for the French, where line of vision is not a primary consideration:
If you're the outgoing type, you can adorn it with Moulin Rouge plumes:
Or just sport the plumes on their own. Let's face it, some people just cannot wear headgear:
... and for some, the hairstyle itself is the trademark:
It's hard to see the Banksy face mask going together with a hat:
When all is said and done, it's your choice. My personal favourite is the little number below:
[flight dynamics] twist, dihedral and wingtips
Great article on 2 December 2001, at aerospacewebdotorg, by Doug Jackson.
In answer to the question, ‘Why does an aeroplane’s wing twist?’ he addresses two issues: twist and the dihedral. Perhaps he should also address ‘angle of attack’.
Flight theory
If you look at a wing, as in the diagram below, you see a flat base and a curved top. As the air flows faster over the curved section, this creates low pressure and the difference from the high pressure base creates lift.
After that comes the Lift/Drag ratio and that depends on a number of things. Suffice to say that the higher the ratio, the more effective is the power.
If the base of an aeroplane’s wing is horizontal to the ground, the plane’s not going to take off; in a not dissimilar way, a sailboat will not go directly upwind. So the whole wing needs angling upwards towards the leading edge and this is angle of attack.
Twist
Doug Jackson writes:
This phenomenon of twist is well known in the sailing world too and is one reason why the solid wing boats, even Cogito:
… will not replace the soft wing:
… that reason being the capability of a soft sail to twist at the top. Cogito, in the top pic, was able, at great expense, to create twist and thus was untouchable on the race course. It’s the world champion.
Back to aeroplanes.
Dihedral
Here is an example of dihedral:
The opposite of dihedral is called anhedral, and, of course, refers to a wing that is angled down. A good example of an aircraft with geometric anhedral is the Sea Harrier:
Effective dihedral is a little different:
I know the Spitfire used dihedral:
… and was a fighter but almost all modern fighters use anhedral, e.g. the F18:
Large transports have both a high wing and a considerable amount of wing sweep, both of which create a large amount of effective dihedral. To counteract this large amount of dihedral, some geometric anhedral is required. Otherwise the aircraft would be overly stable, making turns extremely difficult, and an aircraft that can only fly in one direction isn't much use to anyone.
Anhedral applies to bombers as well.
Wingtips
It’s been shown in both the aeronautical world and in the aquanautical, that if you put perpendicular or angled tips on the ends of the wings [foils], you increase their efficiency.
This is because of the theory of flight. Those unbalanced pressures above and below the wing [or to windward and leeward in a yacht], cause air to try to make its way around the tip to the other side, creating vortices and drag.
To avoid this, rivet a vertical panel on the end of the wing and you’ve instantly increased the wing’s efficiency. This especially applies to yacht keels and was the centre of the controversy over Australia II’s victory in the America’s Cup in 1983.
So, you either know all this already or now you’ll look more closely at wings next time you’re near them.
In answer to the question, ‘Why does an aeroplane’s wing twist?’ he addresses two issues: twist and the dihedral. Perhaps he should also address ‘angle of attack’.
Flight theory
If you look at a wing, as in the diagram below, you see a flat base and a curved top. As the air flows faster over the curved section, this creates low pressure and the difference from the high pressure base creates lift.
After that comes the Lift/Drag ratio and that depends on a number of things. Suffice to say that the higher the ratio, the more effective is the power.
If the base of an aeroplane’s wing is horizontal to the ground, the plane’s not going to take off; in a not dissimilar way, a sailboat will not go directly upwind. So the whole wing needs angling upwards towards the leading edge and this is angle of attack.
Twist
Doug Jackson writes:
In most aircraft, the airfoil twists down as we move along the wing further from the fuselage. This is referred to as "washout." Twist is applied to wings so that the outboard section of the wing does not stall first.
When an aircraft is pitching nose up and increasing its angle of attack, the airflow over the wing eventually reaches a point where it becomes turbulent, causing a loss in lift. By twisting the outboard portion of the wing down, the stall is delayed in that area, simply because the angle of attack is lower in that region.
Why is the outboard portion of the wing so important? It is because that is where the ailerons are located. By maintaining lift on the outboard portion of the wing, the pilot is still able to maintain roll control of the aircraft in the event of a stall.
This phenomenon of twist is well known in the sailing world too and is one reason why the solid wing boats, even Cogito:
… will not replace the soft wing:
… that reason being the capability of a soft sail to twist at the top. Cogito, in the top pic, was able, at great expense, to create twist and thus was untouchable on the race course. It’s the world champion.
Back to aeroplanes.
Dihedral
Dihedral is the upward angle of the wing from the vertical when seen from the front, or nose of the aircraft. If each wing is angled 5° up from the horizontal, then the wing is said to have 5° of dihedral.
Here is an example of dihedral:
The opposite of dihedral is called anhedral, and, of course, refers to a wing that is angled down. A good example of an aircraft with geometric anhedral is the Sea Harrier:
Effective dihedral is a little different:
Many aspects of an aircraft's configuration can effect its effective dihedral, but two major components are wing sweep and the wing location with respect to the fuselage (such as a low wing or high wing). As a rough estimation, 10° of sweepback on a wing provides about 1° of effective dihedral, while a high wing configuration can provide about 5° of effective dihedral over a low wing configuration.
All this talk of anhedral and dihedral leads to the question of why one would want use either of these on an aircraft. The simple answer is they provide lateral (roll) stability. Let's consider an aircraft rolling to the right. As it does so, the right wing produces more lift than left wing, causing the rolling motion. At the same time, however, this increased lift creates an increased drag, which causes the aircraft to yaw to the left, an effect known as adverse yaw. This is why pilots need to apply rudder in the direction of the turn.
Now let's consider the advantages of dihedral. When an aircraft with dihedral is yawing to the left, the dihedral causes the left wing to experience a greater angle of attack, which increases lift. This increased lift tends to cause the aircraft to then return to level flight. I know this is very confusing in words, but if you stick your arms out in the air and recreate all of these motions, it should make sense.
The end result of all of this is that dihedral tends to make an aircraft more stable.
For some aircraft, like fighters, stability really isn't a good thing. A slight instability in an aircraft leads to increased maneuverability, which is highly desirable in fighter and attack aircraft. This is why most aerobatic planes and military fighters utilize some amount of anhedral.
I know the Spitfire used dihedral:
… and was a fighter but almost all modern fighters use anhedral, e.g. the F18:
Large transports have both a high wing and a considerable amount of wing sweep, both of which create a large amount of effective dihedral. To counteract this large amount of dihedral, some geometric anhedral is required. Otherwise the aircraft would be overly stable, making turns extremely difficult, and an aircraft that can only fly in one direction isn't much use to anyone.
Anhedral applies to bombers as well.
Wingtips
It’s been shown in both the aeronautical world and in the aquanautical, that if you put perpendicular or angled tips on the ends of the wings [foils], you increase their efficiency.
This is because of the theory of flight. Those unbalanced pressures above and below the wing [or to windward and leeward in a yacht], cause air to try to make its way around the tip to the other side, creating vortices and drag.
To avoid this, rivet a vertical panel on the end of the wing and you’ve instantly increased the wing’s efficiency. This especially applies to yacht keels and was the centre of the controversy over Australia II’s victory in the America’s Cup in 1983.
So, you either know all this already or now you’ll look more closely at wings next time you’re near them.
Friday, March 20, 2009
[seven essential items] to make daily life possible
I don’t mean job, car, freedom from violence and a clean water supply but more mundane, daily things. The test of how essential they are to you would be that you must go out and replace them immediately if they were either lost or damaged.
My list would include:
1. The Mac. It’s showing some signs of aging now, given it’s almost constant use, up to 11 hours a day and what to do once it gives up the ghost I really don’t know.
2. My black vinyl/leather soft A4 folder/case with the zip. It cost about 400 roubles long ago and it’s been everywhere with me. It goes everywhere today.
3. The black leather cap. This fills the gap between the winter woollie beanie and the light cap of summer. I’ve lost it a few times and was almost beside myself until it was found.
4. Grotty black cloth rucksack. Designed to look appalling, I hoped to disguise the fact, with the local hooligans, that I carry my Mac in there and when I’m out, unless visiting, I try to look a bit downmarket.
5. The ASDA jacket. Black with a sort of olive-grey trim, it was bought last September, was meant to be for early autumn but went right through till now and needs a dry clean. It’s main advantage are the convenient pockets and flaps.
6. The bike. ’Nuff said and thanks for the loan.
7. The National Insurance number.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)