Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Stronger than steel made from wood! (Score 1) 82

I don't think you quite understand.

Wood is an excellent engineering material, it's widely used in construction, and can and has been very successfully used for ships, aircraft etc. During WWII, even when aluminium alloys were available, British designers used wood, to make very highly successful, fast, and very robust aircraft like the de Havilland Mosquito.

Yes, of course you have to consider multiple properties, but actually, wood is very good under lots of different properties, particularly compression, and wood in general and balsa structures in particular have *surreal* rigidity. See this table:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

so by weight, balsa is the most rigid material known, by a long, long way.

Comment: Re:Stronger than steel made from wood! (Score 1) 82

Actually:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Look down the list for stainless steel... then carry on down to 'balsa'.

Yup. Wood has a better strength to weigh ratio than stainless steel. (Only along the grain though but plywood fixes that, and you can put the strength in the direction you need it.)

Although they're not in the table, other woods are similar, but more dense.

Comment: Re:gullwing doors (Score 1) 136

by WolfWithoutAClause (#47195849) Attached to: Tesla Makes Improvements To Model S

Rocket engines very typically ARE internal combustion engines.

The definition of 'internal combustion' is that the pressures from the combustion gases cause the motion. (In external combustion engines, such as steam engines, the heat from the combustion goes through a heat exchanger and the working fluid on the other side of that does the work.)

In a rocket the exhaust gases push directly on the exhaust nozzle, and the interior of the combustion chamber and causes the motion, making it an internal combustion engine.

Some rockets (such as nuclear-thermal or solar-thermal rockets) do have a heat exchanger, and are not internal combustion engines, but not the common ones.

Comment: Re:From many points of data (Score 2) 772

by WolfWithoutAClause (#47107383) Attached to: Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy

Yes, isn't believing in the truth of something that has been rigorously proved part of scientific literacy?

What would happen if the ones that don't believe humans evolved were forced to deal with some of the unequivocal data that backs it up, like genetics, would they still deny it and cause practical problems?

Further it raises the question as to who is trying to change the test, and why ;)

Comment: Re:Knowledge (Score 1) 1037

by WolfWithoutAClause (#46684349) Attached to: How the Internet Is Taking Away America's Religion

I think that there is a question as to whether the three witnesses are reliable or not. ;)

I'm also pretty damn sure that Native Americans are not descended from Egyptians, and that the genetic information that shows they're not is widely available, and does stack up.

If that was not the case, there would be some super-duper famous scientists right now that had managed to prove a key tenant of Mormonism; either Science or Nature would publish that like a shot. They LOVE overturning apple carts: if you have the hard evidence.

In the real world... that hasn't happened, because they're not descended from there, all the evidence shows that Native Americans came from Asia, migrating across the Bering Strait. It's just 50 miles across the ocean there, it's many thousands of miles the other ways.

Comment: Re:Knowledge (Score 5, Funny) 1037

by WolfWithoutAClause (#46676699) Attached to: How the Internet Is Taking Away America's Religion

Let me give you the view of a non Mormon:

Mormonism is bonkers!

You're talking about a religion created by a convicted con man that involves him 'reading' invisible gold tablets that nobody else could see from within a hat, and mistranslating an Egyptian funerary parchment aka 'The Book of Abraham' that doesn't say what he said it says; and we know that because it was tracked down and translated for real.

Comment: Re:Jet Fuel? (Score 1) 230

by WolfWithoutAClause (#46075609) Attached to: New England Burns Jet Fuel To Keep Lights On

No, wind and hydro are very good matches.

When the wind blows, the hydro holds back its water; it saves the energy for later (at a storage efficiency of about 99%). When the wind drops it lets the water through faster to make up for the lack of wind.

So the combined system has more average power; the wind is able to enhance the hydro generation and the hydro smooths out the wind.

Comment: Re:Jet Fuel? (Score 1) 230

by WolfWithoutAClause (#46075579) Attached to: New England Burns Jet Fuel To Keep Lights On

That's a nice, clear explanation of how wind power means you use more fuel.

Unfortunately it's absolute, total bollocks.

The reason it's bollocks is because wind is used for about 20% or so of the total production, whereas the combustion turbines are only used as an emergency back-up.

In nearly every case, when the wind drops (which they have several days advance warning for) all that happens is that the other sources (the more efficient sources) increase their output.

Only if you have major failures elsewhere do the combustion turbines kick in.

Comment: Re:Double bind (Score 1) 1431

by WolfWithoutAClause (#46020295) Attached to: Man Shot To Death For Texting During Movie

No, in practice armed people don't actually have to be polite to unarmed people at all; because armed people don't have to worry about being shot by them. I mean, they may be, but they don't have to be.

So far from taking away the ability to be rude fucks; it's arming the rude fucks, they will tend to want to be armed more than polite people; they're the ones that are more likely to need a gun, because they're the ones that tend to kick up problems.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Working...