Re: Inertial-dampening systems
msadkins04_at_yahoo.com
Date: 02/10/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: James : "Re: Epistemology 201: washington sigma gama"
- In reply to: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Inertial-dampening systems"
- Next in thread: msadkins04_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Inertial-dampening systems"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 10 Feb 2005 14:58:35 -0800
Another collection of red-herrings, straw-man arguments, and ex post
facto reformulations of previous remarks. Pardon me if I don't bother
responding point by point.
.
Mark Adkins
msadkins04@yahoo.com
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <1107811826.403051.194720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> <msadkins04@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Adkins:
> >> >> >The balloon is lighter than air. The human integument is > >>
> >>not an eggshell, and does not share the crush resistant
> >> >> >properties derived from its shape and substance. What
> >> >> >happens to the inside of the egg? Scrambled eggs.
> >
> > Hansen:
> >> >>
> >> >> Why don't you try it and find out? Shake a raw egg as
> >> >>hard as you can, until your arm is tired. Then carefully
> >> >>crack it open and see if the yoke is still intact.
> >
> > Adkins:
> >> >
> >> >If so, it proves my point rather than yours.
> >
> > Hansen:
> >>
> >> If the yolk is intact, that proves that immersion in an
> >> oxygenated fluid will not protect the pilot from
> >> acceleration?
> >
> >Hansen, you keep going from one red-herring to another. First you
said
> >that your "oxygenated fluid" would work because an egg encased in
> >"epoxy" (rubber-cement?) can be dropped from a two-story window
without
> >cracking it. Then, you dispensed with the epoxy, saying that your
> >fluid (which doesn't exist, and is both biologically and
mechanically
> >untenable) works because you can shake an egg in your hand as hard
as
> >you like without breaking the yolk.
>
> When you mentioned the yolk, I decided I like that analogy much
better
> because it doesn't require a bucket full of epoxy to try out. Same
> principle-- something delicate immersed in fluid.
>
> I'll bet if you made an effort, you could find literature through
> scholar.google.com on my oxygenated fluid that doesn't exist and is
both
> biologically and mechanically untenable. Try searching e.g. on
"liquid
> ventilation".
>
> >
> >Well, I don't have an egg handy, but assume that you can shake it
> >without breaking the yolk. If the structure of an egg is such a
good
> >analog for human anatomy, then dispense with the egg and shake a
human.
> > If you don't cause internal injuries such as hemmorage and
concussion,
> >or external ones such as breaking or dislocating bones, it's only
> >because the accelerations involved are of low magnitude: such a low
> >magnitude, in fact, that they are irrelevant to the issue at hand:
how
> >to impart high accelerations to human bodies without causing
internal
> >or external injuries. As I said originally, "sudden, high-magnitude
> >accelerations".
>
> Oh goody, you've discovered that the technique cannot scale to
infinity.
> Is this the fourth time you've mentioned that after I did?
>
> As far as I'm concerned, more than eight gees qualifies as a sudden,
> high-magnitude acceleration since that's beyond the capability of
human
> pilots and technology today.
>
> >
> >We're also not talking about using a shock-absorber to convert
> >mechanical energy into heat
>
> No, we're not. Although it seems that you think I am.
>
>
> >; we're talking about accelerating a human
> >body, for example to increase its velocity. A fluid is about as
good
> >as a rock for that. If you don't believe me, ask some of the Golden
> >Gate bridge suicides about it, after you conduct your modified Van
de
>
> If you can find an egg, after you shake it as hard as you can and
remove
> the intact yolk, I'll bet you can break the yolk if you throw it into
a
> body of water. I'll try to verify that assumption this weekend;
let's
> make it a virtual date. Then we can discuss the differences between
a
> yolk shaken inside an egg and a yolk thrown into the water.
>
> --
> "The preferred method of entering a building is to use a tank main
gun
> round, direct fire artillery round, or TOW, Dragon, or Hellfire
missile to
> clear the first room." -- THE RANGER HANDBOOK U.S. Army, 1992
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: James : "Re: Epistemology 201: washington sigma gama"
- In reply to: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Inertial-dampening systems"
- Next in thread: msadkins04_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Inertial-dampening systems"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|