Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment I forgot to add (Score 1) 159

Also it's going to be the profile exposed to wind and not volume that would matter and while that would be larger it's going to be closer to two times than five times - similar to cross sectional area from the direction of wind instead of volume. If the thing is going forward it could be much less since than the current blimp since the Akron etc were much more streamlined and is around the same maximum diameter. Almost pencil versus grid-iron football profile, just a really big pencil as thick as a football.
On a still day moving down slowly it's not going to be much so is ignorable when there is a very large difference in thrust.

Comment Weight of lighter than air vehicles (Score 1) 159

Did you notice it had a very different cross section and was much stiffer so would be loaded differently by wind and movement in general?
It's a bit hard to do a comparison on anything other than raw thrust especially since the weight is going to be around the same once the things are full of gas.
On a still day the Akron or any of the others would have far "more ability to anchor itself down with its fans" than the Airlander even if they would perform differently in other ways.

Did you also perhaps notice that Akron had 5 times the enclosed volume of the Airlander

That's kind of one of my points about the hype. Good on them for doing this but all the hype about it being an amazing new thing that Grandad would goggle at is a bit much.
I'll add that calling this a "crash", like the journalists have been, is a bit like calling a ship that hits a dock hard and does some damage a "sinking".

Comment Re:Not quite... (Score 1) 220

Christ you've written a LOT of shit and now you have managed to trick me into wading through it despite both of us knowing what you are up to.
Since I'm going backwards - first the bit AFTER it was pointed out to you how ridiculous your bit about it liquids cars being a massive problem:

I stand by my overall point, the pros of flow batteries are not sufficient to outweigh the cons wrt powering cars, and there is lttle reason to think that will change.

So you stand by your attack despite having no evidence - attacking just for the sake of it because you don't like "green" stuff as if machines are people with politics. Blind luddite politics trumping reason.

So here are your quotes: https://slashdot.org/users2.pl...
https://slashdot.org/users2.pl?page=3&uid=3395377&view=userhomepage&fhfilter=%22home%3AMr+D+from+63%22
https://slashdot.org/users2.pl?page=2&uid=3395377&view=userhomepage&fhfilter=%22home%3AMr+D+from+63%22
https://slashdot.org/users2.pl?page=1&uid=3395377&view=userhomepage&fhfilter=%22home%3AMr+D+from+63%22
Fuck you post a LOT of shit and just keep on attacking over and over and over almost as if you were paid for it - which makes people like me who do live off coal money look really bad when we get compared to utter pricks like you.

WTF is your problem?
You've won your stupid fucking game of making me jump to "prove" what you already know so fuck off and don't bother me again until you are prepared to act your age instead of like a stupid kid.

Comment Akron + Macon (Score 1) 159

more ability to anchor itself down with its fans

A quick wikipedia search show that the USS Akron had eight Maybach VL-II 560 hp (420 kW) engines while the Airlander 10 has four x 350 hp engines.
It's a step in front of some other current small blimps but has less ability to thrust itself down than airships of the past.

Comment Less power than a Zeppelin (Score 3, Informative) 159

Yes but still a step below the semi-rigid airships like the Italians had in the 1920s (Norge, Italia) or the rigid airships, both of which have smaller relative cross section again.
The bit about fans doesn't sound like anything new to be honest the engines are less powerful there are less of them so don't add up to the same thrust as was seen in airships which had engines that could pivot in a similar way to this. One airship of the 1920s had five engines - each 410 kW (550 hp). Airlander 10 apparently has four x 350 hp.

Comment Re:As did all the others. (Score 1) 159

Yes but in a lot of ways this is technologically inferior to what the Italians had in 1926.
It's more of a blimp than the Norge or Italia. The "hybrid" bit is hype because tiltable engines have been a feature of blimps and airships all along.
Shiny new materials and a different lifting gas but it's still an awkwardly shaped balloon with engines attached.

Comment Re:25 years, still garbage for the mainstream (Score 1) 307

Image editing is image editing even if it's a mass crop or resolution change done on a batch from the command line or a GUI application that can do batch processing.
So you've got a cute little personal definition - fine - but you don't get to call others morons just because they don't know your cute personal "that's not a knife, THIS is a knife" definition.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders. -- Gauss

Working...