| |
Main
Date: 18 Sep 2007 21:00:17
From:
Subject: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
It looks as if Boeing is imitating RBT:
"Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing
that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative
composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with
toxic fumes. He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering
colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test
the plane's crashworthiness."
"Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he
raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical
experts."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boeing180.html
At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 20:36:09
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:00:17 -0600, in rec.bicycles.tech
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
I heard a story once... it comes from a person who isn't usually prone
to much "imagination" in the stories he relates. He was a maintenance
worker at the University of Texas. He said that a hot electrical wire
was dropped by a crew on the Robert Moore building. According to the
story, they had cordoned off the work area; however, the power line
hit a CF bicycle, arced, and caused the bicycle to catch fire. I also
heard the same story from a mechanic at *Freewheelin'* bicycle shop in
the university area who said that he saw the frame afterward.
I tend to believe it; your milage may vary.
Jones
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 18:43:26
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:28:12 -0500, A Muzi wrote:
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> It looks as if Boeing is imitating RBT:
>> "Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing
>> that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative
>> composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with
>> toxic fumes. He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering
>> colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test
>> the plane's crashworthiness."
>>
>> "Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he
>> raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical
>> experts."
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boeing180.html
>> At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
>
> My Kestrel's probably safe without a couple tons of jet fuel onboard. I
> can't recall any crash of mine with actual flames although as a winter
> bike I have thought about it.
I'm guessing you've never been to any Chunk 666 events:
http://tinyurl.com/2k4e6g
Oh wait, did you mean ACCIDENTALLY set on fire?
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 15:07:53
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Sep 19, 12:37 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:28:12 -0500, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> It looks as if Boeing is imitating RBT:
> >> "Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing
> >> that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative
> >> composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with
> >> toxic fumes. He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering
> >> colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test
> >> the plane's crashworthiness."
>
> >> "Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he
> >> raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical
> >> experts."
> >>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boei...
> >> At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
>
> >My Kestrel's probably safe without a couple tons of jet fuel onboard. I
> >can't recall any crash of mine with actual flames although as a winter
> >bike I have thought about it.
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> Some day, I'll find the story whose Walter-Mitty-esque hero, driving
> an ordinary sedan and imagining a more exciting life as a race car
> driver, fantasizes about flames shooting from the dashboard clock.
>
Kind of off topic, but I worked ambulance for six years back in the
'70s in the Santa Clara Valley and saw probably a couple thousand car
wrecks, and you know what? Cars very, very rarely burst in to flames
-- even in spectacular collision. Now, based on television dramas,
cars will explode if you so much as tap the bumper against a shopping
cart in the K Mart parking lot. I once had a call where a 60s VW bus
smashed in to the back of a loaded gas tanker that was creeping up the
grade on HWY 17 (a blind corner). The collision put a dent in the
back of the tank (at the lower, welded seam) but did not cause it to
blow-up or even leak -- unlike all the exploding gas tanker trucks on
movies and TV. The guy in the VW was dead, which was kind of a
relief, because it meant I could dispatch the coroner and get out of
there. I didn't want to stand around while a bunch of firemen
operating gas circular saws generated huge showers of sparks near the
back of a loaded gas tanker with a big dent in it. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 18:22:50
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote in message
news:1190239673.416357.272440@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Cars very, very rarely burst in to flames
> -- even in spectacular collision. Now, based on television dramas,
> cars will explode if you so much as tap the bumper against a shopping
> cart in the K Mart parking lot. I once had a call where a 60s VW bus
> smashed in to the back of a loaded gas tanker that was creeping up the
> grade on HWY 17 (a blind corner). The collision put a dent in the
> back of the tank (at the lower, welded seam) but did not cause it to
> blow-up or even leak -- unlike all the exploding gas tanker trucks on
> movies and TV.
That's because gasoline won't ignite in its pure liquid form - you need to
vaporize it first. If atmospheric conditions are right (or if there is an
external heat source nearby), vapors will be emitted and once it ignites
with the surrounding air, heat from the combustion will further vaporize the
gasoline pool and the fire will be self-sustaining.
On a very humid day with high barometric pressure, it is possible to
extinguish a burning match by dropping it on a pool of gasoline. Try it if
you dare!
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 21:00:34
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
<snip to preserve incredulity >
> On a very humid day with high barometric pressure, it is possible to
> extinguish a burning match by dropping it on a pool of gasoline. Try it if
> you dare!
no, you first. moron.
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 12:20:58
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:6r-dnaYwc7DqbWzbnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
> <snip to preserve incredulity>
>> On a very humid day with high barometric pressure, it is possible to
>> extinguish a burning match by dropping it on a pool of gasoline. Try it
>> if you dare!
>
> no, you first. moron.
But I've already done it, beamboy. Now why don't you go back to metarials
skool and ... oh wait, why don't you go TO metarials skool and you might
learn something about it?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 18:27:21
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:6r-dnaYwc7DqbWzbnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>> <snip to preserve incredulity>
>>> On a very humid day with high barometric pressure, it is possible to
>>> extinguish a burning match by dropping it on a pool of gasoline. Try it
>>> if you dare!
>> no, you first. moron.
>
> But I've already done it, beamboy. Now why don't you go back to metarials
> skool and ... oh wait, why don't you go TO metarials skool and you might
> learn something about it?
you're a fucking moron!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 23:36:16
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:Gc6dnUMON8nn8mnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:6r-dnaYwc7DqbWzbnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> Jambo wrote:
>>> <snip to preserve incredulity>
>>>> On a very humid day with high barometric pressure, it is possible to
>>>> extinguish a burning match by dropping it on a pool of gasoline. Try
>>>> it if you dare!
>>> no, you first. moron.
>>
>> But I've already done it, beamboy. Now why don't you go back to
>> metarials skool and ... oh wait, why don't you go TO metarials skool and
>> you might learn something about it?
>
> you're a fucking moron!
Wow, I'm crushed.... but like I said, why don't you go back to metarials
skool and ... oh wait, why don't you go TO metarials skool and you might
learn something about it?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 20:43:13
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:Gc6dnUMON8nn8mnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:6r-dnaYwc7DqbWzbnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>> <snip to preserve incredulity>
>>>>> On a very humid day with high barometric pressure, it is possible to
>>>>> extinguish a burning match by dropping it on a pool of gasoline. Try
>>>>> it if you dare!
>>>> no, you first. moron.
>>> But I've already done it, beamboy. Now why don't you go back to
>>> metarials skool and ... oh wait, why don't you go TO metarials skool and
>>> you might learn something about it?
>> you're a fucking moron!
>
> Wow, I'm crushed.... but like I said, why don't you go back to metarials
> skool and ... oh wait, why don't you go TO metarials skool and you might
> learn something about it?
go test some gasoline with a lighted match again, moron.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 11:24:36
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:BLKdnXhRPf7MEmnbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:Gc6dnUMON8nn8mnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:6r-dnaYwc7DqbWzbnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>>> <snip to preserve incredulity>
>>>>>> On a very humid day with high barometric pressure, it is possible to
>>>>>> extinguish a burning match by dropping it on a pool of gasoline. Try
>>>>>> it if you dare!
>>>>> no, you first. moron.
>>>> But I've already done it, beamboy. Now why don't you go back to
>>>> metarials skool and ... oh wait, why don't you go TO metarials skool
>>>> and you might learn something about it?
>>> you're a fucking moron!
>>
>> Wow, I'm crushed.... but like I said, why don't you go back to metarials
>> skool and ... oh wait, why don't you go TO metarials skool and you might
>> learn something about it?
>
> go test some gasoline with a lighted match again, moron.
Hey beamboy, is this Groundhog Day?
Here:
J: On a very humid day with high barometric pressure, it is possible to
extinguish a burning match by dropping it on a pool of gasoline. Try it if
you dare!
beamboy ejaculated: no, you first. moron.
J: But I've already done it, beamboy. Now why don't you go back to
metarials skool and ... oh wait, why don't you go TO metarials skool and you
might learn something about it?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 08:51:31
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:BLKdnXhRPf7MEmnbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Gc6dnUMON8nn8mnbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:6r-dnaYwc7DqbWzbnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>>>> <snip to preserve incredulity>
>>>>>>> On a very humid day with high barometric pressure, it is possible to
>>>>>>> extinguish a burning match by dropping it on a pool of gasoline. Try
>>>>>>> it if you dare!
>>>>>> no, you first. moron.
>>>>> But I've already done it, beamboy. Now why don't you go back to
>>>>> metarials skool and ... oh wait, why don't you go TO metarials skool
>>>>> and you might learn something about it?
>>>> you're a fucking moron!
>>> Wow, I'm crushed.... but like I said, why don't you go back to metarials
>>> skool and ... oh wait, why don't you go TO metarials skool and you might
>>> learn something about it?
>> go test some gasoline with a lighted match again, moron.
>
> Hey beamboy, is this Groundhog Day?
> Here:
> J: On a very humid day with high barometric pressure, it is possible to
> extinguish a burning match by dropping it on a pool of gasoline. Try it if
> you dare!
> beamboy ejaculated: no, you first. moron.
> J: But I've already done it, beamboy. Now why don't you go back to
> metarials skool and ... oh wait, why don't you go TO metarials skool and you
> might learn something about it?
>
moron, i /invite/ you to prove your hypothesis. i'll buy the gasoline
and matches.
what a complete fucking moron!!!
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:14:03
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:h-CdnWYri6EeFmvbnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> moron, i /invite/ you to prove your hypothesis. i'll buy the gasoline and
> matches.
You can prove it to yourself, beamboy. Just do it, you don't need me,
unless you have absolutely no idea how to conduct an experiment... oh wait,
say no more....
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 10:28:39
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:h-CdnWYri6EeFmvbnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> moron, i /invite/ you to prove your hypothesis. i'll buy the gasoline and
>> matches.
>
> You can prove it to yourself, beamboy. Just do it, you don't need me,
on the contrary, moron, i think /you/ should take a leadership role in
this. i'll provide a 60 gallon drum of gasoline. you pour it over
yourself, then light one of the matches i'll give you. you'll be
perfectly safe if what you say is true.
> unless you have absolutely no idea how to conduct an experiment... oh wait,
> say no more....
i'll gladly video you showing me how to do it! moron.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 15:59:42
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:Pv2dnVF3DrzVP2vbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:h-CdnWYri6EeFmvbnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> moron, i /invite/ you to prove your hypothesis. i'll buy the gasoline
>>> and matches.
>>
>> You can prove it to yourself, beamboy. Just do it, you don't need me,
>
> on the contrary, moron, i think /you/ should take a leadership role in
> this. i'll provide a 60 gallon drum of gasoline. you pour it over
> yourself, then light one of the matches i'll give you. you'll be
> perfectly safe if what you say is true.
But beamboy, you once again show your incapacitated intellect. What did I
say? Toss a lit match onto a pool of gasoline on a high humidity high
barometric pressure day, NOT on gasoline that's been poure on someone
because that's not a POOL anymore, get it?
>> unless you have absolutely no idea how to conduct an experiment... oh
>> wait, say no more....
>
> i'll gladly video you showing me how to do it! moron.
unless you have absolutely no idea how to conduct an experiment... oh wait,
say no more....
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 14:04:11
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>> moron, i /invite/ you to prove your hypothesis. i'll buy the
>>> gasoline and matches.
>> You can prove it to yourself, beamboy. Just do it, you don't need me,
> on the contrary, moron, i think /you/ should take a leadership role in
> this. i'll provide a 60 gallon drum of gasoline. you pour it over
> yourself, then light one of the matches i'll give you. you'll be
> perfectly safe if what you say is true.
> Jambo wrote:
>> unless you have absolutely no idea how to conduct an experiment... oh
>> wait, say no more....
jim beam wrote:
> i'll gladly video you showing me how to do it! moron.
I've actually watched* that done. He's right.
You need a small can of gasoline nearly full as after rinsing an air
cleaner and I suppose the high humidity of a Wisconsin August helps a lot.
Vaporizing the gasoline by pouring it over one's head is a different
situation altogether.
* I was chicken.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 15:26:15
From:
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:04:11 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>>> moron, i /invite/ you to prove your hypothesis. i'll buy the
>>>> gasoline and matches.
>
>>> You can prove it to yourself, beamboy. Just do it, you don't need me,
>
>> on the contrary, moron, i think /you/ should take a leadership role in
>> this. i'll provide a 60 gallon drum of gasoline. you pour it over
>> yourself, then light one of the matches i'll give you. you'll be
>> perfectly safe if what you say is true.
>
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> unless you have absolutely no idea how to conduct an experiment... oh
>>> wait, say no more....
>
>jim beam wrote:
>> i'll gladly video you showing me how to do it! moron.
>
>I've actually watched* that done. He's right.
>You need a small can of gasoline nearly full as after rinsing an air
>cleaner and I suppose the high humidity of a Wisconsin August helps a lot.
>Vaporizing the gasoline by pouring it over one's head is a different
>situation altogether.
>* I was chicken.
Dear Andrew,
Unable to a resist a bargain no matter how useless, my father bought a
burnt-out RV christened "Smokey," the victim of some carelessness with
the stove.
The most interesting damage was the flexible hose from the gas cap to
the gas tank--it was burned completely through, but the gas hadn't
ignited, much less exploded. Being brought up on flaming car wrecks on
television, I was flummoxed.
At the time, my younger sister's boyfriend worked for Failure Analysis
near Stanford. He explained that burnt-out cars that he'd investigated
showed that it can be awfully hard to get gas in tanks to ignite,
mentioning humidity, vapor pressure, and other factors.
This was no comfort to me the one time that I saw a faint flame pop
into life from the open gas cap of a car at a filling station.
Luckily, the flame went out, possibly due to the local increase in
humidity caused by my damp trousers.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 16:43:12
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:04:11 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
> wrote:
>
>>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>>>> moron, i /invite/ you to prove your hypothesis. i'll buy the
>>>>> gasoline and matches.
>>>> You can prove it to yourself, beamboy. Just do it, you don't need me,
>>> on the contrary, moron, i think /you/ should take a leadership role in
>>> this. i'll provide a 60 gallon drum of gasoline. you pour it over
>>> yourself, then light one of the matches i'll give you. you'll be
>>> perfectly safe if what you say is true.
>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>> unless you have absolutely no idea how to conduct an experiment... oh
>>>> wait, say no more....
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> i'll gladly video you showing me how to do it! moron.
>> I've actually watched* that done. He's right.
>> You need a small can of gasoline nearly full as after rinsing an air
>> cleaner and I suppose the high humidity of a Wisconsin August helps a lot.
>> Vaporizing the gasoline by pouring it over one's head is a different
>> situation altogether.
>> * I was chicken.
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> Unable to a resist a bargain no matter how useless, my father bought a
> burnt-out RV christened "Smokey," the victim of some carelessness with
> the stove.
>
> The most interesting damage was the flexible hose from the gas cap to
> the gas tank--it was burned completely through, but the gas hadn't
> ignited, much less exploded. Being brought up on flaming car wrecks on
> television, I was flummoxed.
>
> At the time, my younger sister's boyfriend worked for Failure Analysis
> near Stanford. He explained that burnt-out cars that he'd investigated
> showed that it can be awfully hard to get gas in tanks to ignite,
> mentioning humidity, vapor pressure, and other factors.
>
> This was no comfort to me the one time that I saw a faint flame pop
> into life from the open gas cap of a car at a filling station.
> Luckily, the flame went out, possibly due to the local increase in
> humidity caused by my damp trousers.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
that's because the tank is full of gas liquid and gas vapor - very
little air - certainly not enough to sustain combustion. the open dish
experiment described by moron otoh, that is the ideal air/vapor mix
combustion scenario.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 16:15:30
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness? - epitomy of beamboy's intellect (or lack of)
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:07idneAbgpONZ2vbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> that's because the tank is full of gas liquid and gas vapor - very little
> air - certainly not enough to sustain combustion. the open dish
> experiment described by moron otoh, that is the ideal air/vapor mix
> combustion scenario.
Dodge, dodge, dodge... and by the way, a very poor one too, since you got
the physics WRONG, as usual.
Gasoline will ignite only when the local fuel-air ratio is within a range
suitable for combustion. The ratio range is dependent on humidity,
barometric pressure, and wind movement.
Gas tanks can ignite if vapor is present in the tank, and enough air is
present, such as with an open tank cap.
Open containers of gasoline, when humidity and pressure is sufficiently
high, can have little or no vapor present on the gas surface - hence, no
ignition is possible until enough heat is applied to the gasoline to cause
vaporization of the gas (more energy than a lit match can provide).
Now an ignorant tard like you will never understand this, because your life
is ruled by your idiotic notions that you try to support by warping science
and reality around you.
Lie and be ignorant all your life, but at some point you have to realize
that you're fooling no one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 16:45:46
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
>>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>>>> moron, i /invite/ you to prove your hypothesis. i'll buy the
>>>>> gasoline and matches.
>>>> You can prove it to yourself, beamboy. Just do it, you don't need me,
>>> on the contrary, moron, i think /you/ should take a leadership role in
>>> this. i'll provide a 60 gallon drum of gasoline. you pour it over
>>> yourself, then light one of the matches i'll give you. you'll be
>>> perfectly safe if what you say is true.
>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>> unless you have absolutely no idea how to conduct an experiment... oh
>>>> wait, say no more....
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> i'll gladly video you showing me how to do it! moron.
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> I've actually watched* that done. He's right.
>> You need a small can of gasoline nearly full as after rinsing an air
>> cleaner and I suppose the high humidity of a Wisconsin August helps a lot.
>> Vaporizing the gasoline by pouring it over one's head is a different
>> situation altogether.
>> * I was chicken.
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> Unable to a resist a bargain no matter how useless, my father bought a
> burnt-out RV christened "Smokey," the victim of some carelessness with
> the stove.
>
> The most interesting damage was the flexible hose from the gas cap to
> the gas tank--it was burned completely through, but the gas hadn't
> ignited, much less exploded. Being brought up on flaming car wrecks on
> television, I was flummoxed.
>
> At the time, my younger sister's boyfriend worked for Failure Analysis
> near Stanford. He explained that burnt-out cars that he'd investigated
> showed that it can be awfully hard to get gas in tanks to ignite,
> mentioning humidity, vapor pressure, and other factors.
>
> This was no comfort to me the one time that I saw a faint flame pop
> into life from the open gas cap of a car at a filling station.
> Luckily, the flame went out, possibly due to the local increase in
> humidity caused by my damp trousers.
'Cars lost to flame' could be a long thread.
I lost a newish delivery van through mysterious employee-related fire
once ("You can't bring my truck back _why_??") but I know much better
stories with motor vehicles and fire. Lots. Renault Dauphines come to
mind, naturally.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 07:00:35
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
In article <13fdni65lt9ib35@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
> >>>>> moron, i /invite/ you to prove your hypothesis. i'll buy the
> >>>>> gasoline and matches.
> >>>> You can prove it to yourself, beamboy. Just do it, you don't need me,
> >>> on the contrary, moron, i think /you/ should take a leadership role in
> >>> this. i'll provide a 60 gallon drum of gasoline. you pour it over
> >>> yourself, then light one of the matches i'll give you. you'll be
> >>> perfectly safe if what you say is true.
> > At the time, my younger sister's boyfriend worked for Failure Analysis
> > near Stanford. He explained that burnt-out cars that he'd investigated
> > showed that it can be awfully hard to get gas in tanks to ignite,
> > mentioning humidity, vapor pressure, and other factors.
> >
> > This was no comfort to me the one time that I saw a faint flame pop
> > into life from the open gas cap of a car at a filling station.
> > Luckily, the flame went out, possibly due to the local increase in
> > humidity caused by my damp trousers.
>
> 'Cars lost to flame' could be a long thread.
> I lost a newish delivery van through mysterious employee-related fire
> once ("You can't bring my truck back _why_??") but I know much better
> stories with motor vehicles and fire. Lots. Renault Dauphines come to
> mind, naturally.
I know that one too! And the punchline is, "so we elected Sarkozy as
President."
Avec une Kärcher,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 22:01:24
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:45:46 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
>'Cars lost to flame' could be a long thread.
>I lost a newish delivery van through mysterious employee-related fire
>once ("You can't bring my truck back _why_??") but I know much better
>stories with motor vehicles and fire. Lots. Renault Dauphines come to
>mind, naturally.
Pintos.
2CVs were actually famous for looking like a crushed can after any major
wreck, but surprisingly often the driver actually survives. Not due to any
great care being taken with crumple zones and all, several of the
crumpling bits impact the driver's seat position, but still.
VW vans, on the other hand, were famous for the fact that your legs *were*
the front crumple zone. There was nothing between yer legs and that big
bumper and winch on a 4x4 except a thin piece of sheet metal that provided
no protection whatsoever.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 12:30:10
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
A Muzi wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>>> moron, i /invite/ you to prove your hypothesis. i'll buy the
>>>> gasoline and matches.
>
>>> You can prove it to yourself, beamboy. Just do it, you don't need me,
>
>> on the contrary, moron, i think /you/ should take a leadership role in
>> this. i'll provide a 60 gallon drum of gasoline. you pour it over
>> yourself, then light one of the matches i'll give you. you'll be
>> perfectly safe if what you say is true.
>
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> unless you have absolutely no idea how to conduct an experiment... oh
>>> wait, say no more....
>
> jim beam wrote:
>> i'll gladly video you showing me how to do it! moron.
>
> I've actually watched* that done. He's right.
> You need a small can of gasoline nearly full as after rinsing an air
> cleaner
but that's the trick. most air cleaner elements, even paper ones
[except cheap stuff like fram], are saturated in oil. after the
gasoline has done with rinsing, all the oil is dissolved into the gas
and its vapor pressure is nowhere near as high as it was, thus it's less
flammable and you /can/ do experiments like this. but fresh straight
uncontaminated gasoline? volatile combustible vapor pressure is too
high and the mix with air too great. doesn't work. leave it out for a
day or two for the volatiles to evaporate, it just might, but that's
cheating.
> and I suppose the high humidity of a Wisconsin August helps a lot.
> Vaporizing the gasoline by pouring it over one's head is a different
> situation altogether.
> * I was chicken.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 16:09:17
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:yMudnXyCdNRaI2vbnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> but that's the trick.
-snip pathetic dodge-
There you go, beamboy. Ready to do it yourself? I'll send you instructions
with really big pictures...
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 14:15:51
From:
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:00:17 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>It looks as if Boeing is imitating RBT:
>
>"Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing
>that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative
>composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with
>toxic fumes. He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering
>colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test
>the plane's crashworthiness."
>
>"Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he
>raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical
>experts."
>
>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boeing180.html
>
>At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
Here's a 7 minute video of Sam Whittingham and others at Battle
Mountain, with lots of interesting details, such as the search of the
maximum allowable 2/3% slope in the western U.S.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7tc5ijzFxY&mode=related&search=
At 1:30, Whittingham comments on carbon fiber, kevlar, and crashing.
:)
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 16:59:14
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:eo03f3pltaqspq5sav3m8755mjb1i7u26m@4ax.com...
>
> Here's a 7 minute video of Sam Whittingham and others at Battle
> Mountain, with lots of interesting details, such as the search of the
> maximum allowable 2/3% slope in the western U.S.:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7tc5ijzFxY&mode=related&search=
>
> At 1:30, Whittingham comments on carbon fiber, kevlar, and crashing.
This brings up a question of interest - what is a bicycle? Are those things
still considered as bicycles?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&defl=en&q=define:Bicycle&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
I guess they are.
I like the guy riding his machine facing backwards - steering must take some
getting used to.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 16:43:04
From: Luke
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
In article <eo03f3pltaqspq5sav3m8755mjb1i7u26m@4ax.com >,
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote:
> Here's a 7 minute video of Sam Whittingham and others at Battle
> Mountain, with lots of interesting details, such as the search of the
> maximum allowable 2/3% slope in the western U.S.:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7tc5ijzFxY&mode=related&search=
>
> At 1:30, Whittingham comments on carbon fiber, kevlar, and crashing.
>
> :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Thanks Carl. General FYI, here's the salient quote:
"The kevlar is really important for crashing 'cause carbon fibre gives
it the strength but the kevlar gives it its resistance to wearing
through if you fall over."
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 18:42:04
From:
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:43:04 -0400, Luke <lucasiragusa@rogers.com >
wrote:
>In article <eo03f3pltaqspq5sav3m8755mjb1i7u26m@4ax.com>,
><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Here's a 7 minute video of Sam Whittingham and others at Battle
>> Mountain, with lots of interesting details, such as the search of the
>> maximum allowable 2/3% slope in the western U.S.:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7tc5ijzFxY&mode=related&search=
>>
>> At 1:30, Whittingham comments on carbon fiber, kevlar, and crashing.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Thanks Carl. General FYI, here's the salient quote:
>
>
>"The kevlar is really important for crashing 'cause carbon fibre gives
>it the strength but the kevlar gives it its resistance to wearing
>through if you fall over."
Dear Luke,
Even better is what follows from the fellow next to Whittingham:
FNW: "But we don't talk about crashing."
SW: [chuckle] We don't talk about crashing."
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 17:02:12
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com > wrote in message
news:190920071643040330%lucasiragusa@rogers.com...
> Thanks Carl. General FYI, here's the salient quote:
>
>
> "The kevlar is really important for crashing 'cause carbon fibre gives
> it the strength but the kevlar gives it its resistance to wearing
> through if you fall over."
Ya know, I've got a Terry saddle that supposedly has Kevlar strips on the
side for "scratch protection". Damned if those strips don't fray just like
any other fabric....
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 14:28:12
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> It looks as if Boeing is imitating RBT:
> "Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing
> that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative
> composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with
> toxic fumes. He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering
> colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test
> the plane's crashworthiness."
>
> "Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he
> raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical
> experts."
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boeing180.html
> At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
My Kestrel's probably safe without a couple tons of jet fuel onboard. I
can't recall any crash of mine with actual flames although as a winter
bike I have thought about it.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 19:57:14
From: Steve Gravrock
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On 2007-09-19, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
>
> My Kestrel's probably safe without a couple tons of jet fuel onboard. I
> can't recall any crash of mine with actual flames although as a winter
> bike I have thought about it.
Maybe a carbon version of the Moots Snoots, with white gas stored in
each fork leg and the down tube, would do the job.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 13:37:23
From:
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:28:12 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> It looks as if Boeing is imitating RBT:
>> "Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing
>> that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative
>> composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with
>> toxic fumes. He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering
>> colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test
>> the plane's crashworthiness."
>>
>> "Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he
>> raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical
>> experts."
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boeing180.html
>> At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
>
>My Kestrel's probably safe without a couple tons of jet fuel onboard. I
>can't recall any crash of mine with actual flames although as a winter
>bike I have thought about it.
Dear Andrew,
Some day, I'll find the story whose Walter-Mitty-esque hero, driving
an ordinary sedan and imagining a more exciting life as a race car
driver, fantasizes about flames shooting from the dashboard clock.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 15:34:58
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:13f2u0tcr8d3e7c@corp.supernews.com...
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
>
> My Kestrel's probably safe without a couple tons of jet fuel onboard. I
> can't recall any crash of mine with actual flames although as a winter
> bike I have thought about it.
Well obviously you don't ride fast enough!
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 12:22:05
From: Scott G.
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
> Boeing has spent a fair amount of time in Waterloo, Wisconsin lately.
> Perhaps you can figure out why.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Trek is investigating CF inspection techniques for 3rd party supplied
parts ?
They probably want to make sure they aren't getting carbon wrapped
fiberglass TCT bike frames from some creative supplier.
Scott G.
Who doesn't remember seeing Treks name in Aviation Week.
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 11:52:19
From:
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Sep 19, 2:38 pm, "Jambo" <-...@-.- > wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>
> news:UKedne5lDJEANW3bnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> > Jambo wrote:
> >> But hey, we all just need to calm the f&^* down. According to r.b.t.'s
> >> resident "metallurgist" (he went to materials skool), all Boeing needs to
> >> do is listen to the composites - they will either talk or sing before
> >> they fail (and burn), in plenty of time beforehand. It's a perfect job
> >> for a CF Whisperer!
>
> > hey moron, you figured out what "plasticity" is yet?
>
> Why yes, beamboy. Metal is NOT plastic, no matter how much you try to spin
> it.
>
> > hey moron, you figured out what "density" is yet?
>
> Why yes, beamboy. Look at my other post for my definitive definition of
> "weight" and "density", in terms you can understand!
>
> > hey moron, you figured out what "modulus" is yet?
>
> Why yes, beamboy. Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, no matter how much
> you try to spin it.
>
> Can you provide some advice? If I go to "materials skool", will I also be
> able to hear CF talking or singing to me before they fail? I want to start
> my own company, CF Whisperers Inc.
Yes, I suppose if you had the education and the social skills you
could start a company that manufactures embedded acoustic emission
transducers. You know, those things they build into composite parts
to hear them crack? Of course if you or jb had either of those
attributes, it would deny me the pleasure of watching the two of you
type out of your asses at each other.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 15:32:44
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
<unforgiven99@juno.com > wrote in message
news:1190227939.194132.226050@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, I suppose if you had the education and the social skills you
> could start a company that manufactures embedded acoustic emission
> transducers. You know, those things they build into composite parts
> to hear them crack?
It's good to see that you seem to know what acoustic emission transducers
are, but then again, it's not that hard to Google.
However, Acoustic Emission techniques make use of transducers that detect
mechanical movement IN THE COMPONENT due to impact or excitation, which are
then transformed and amplified into electronic signals - the transducers DO
NOT detect sound (even though sound is part of the energy release of the
material that has been deformed or fractured)
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9811/Huang/Huang-9811.html
http://www.acousticemission.net/background.asp
So, I think I can legitimately say that I avoided "typing out of my ass".
> Of course if you or jb had either of those
> attributes, it would deny me the pleasure of watching the two of you
> type out of your asses at each other.
And of course, if your opinion mattered to me, I would be mucho hurt.
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 15:17:27
From: landotter
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Sep 19, 7:06 am, Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> If I should die in a plane crash, I'd prefer for a spectacular one. CF
> fits the bill! :)
> --
Plane crashes should be jagged, not bristly!
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 06:10:57
From: D'ohBoy
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Sep 18, 11:42 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Jambo wrote:
> > <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:a241f39j060ig42itei5gfjc28k1t0qljp@4ax.com...
> >> It looks as if Boeing is imitating RBT:
>
> >> "Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing
> >> that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative
> >> composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with
> >> toxic fumes. He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering
> >> colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test
> >> the plane's crashworthiness."
>
> >> "Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he
> >> raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical
> >> experts."
>
> >>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boei...
>
> >> At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
>
> > There are many types of composites in aircraft - the differences are mainly
> > in the resin (or matrix) properties and methods of manufacture. It's almost
> > a certainty that the composites used in the 787 are not used by bike
> > manufacturers (the latter using cheaper alternatives).
>
> > But hey, we all just need to calm the f&^* down. According to r.b.t.'s
> > resident "metallurgist" (he went to materials skool), all Boeing needs to do
> > is listen to the composites - they will either talk or sing before they fail
> > (and burn), in plenty of time beforehand. It's a perfect job for a CF
> > Whisperer!
>
> hey moron, you figured out what "plasticity" is yet?
> hey moron, you figured out what "density" is yet?
> hey moron, you figured out what "modulus" is yet?
Jim:
Your behavior is skewing fourth grade if you hadn't noticed.
FYI.
D'ohBoy
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 05:29:06
From:
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Sep 19, 8:06 am, Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> In article <a241f39j060ig42itei5gfjc28k1t0q...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > It looks as if Boeing is imitating RBT:
>
> > "Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing
> > that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative
> > composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with
> > toxic fumes. He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering
> > colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test
> > the plane's crashworthiness."
>
> > "Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he
> > raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical
> > experts."
>
> >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boei...
> > l
>
> > At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
>
> If I should die in a plane crash, I'd prefer for a spectacular one. CF
> fits the bill! :)
> --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
words that may become a regretful portent
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 12:06:23
From: Artoi
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
In article <a241f39j060ig42itei5gfjc28k1t0qljp@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> It looks as if Boeing is imitating RBT:
>
> "Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing
> that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative
> composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with
> toxic fumes. He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering
> colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test
> the plane's crashworthiness."
>
> "Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he
> raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical
> experts."
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boeing180.htm
> l
>
> At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
If I should die in a plane crash, I'd prefer for a spectacular one. CF
fits the bill! :)
--
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 21:04:55
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> It looks as if Boeing is imitating RBT:
>
> "Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing
> that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative
> composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with
> toxic fumes.
eh? has this nimrod been inside a plane in the last 46 years? nothing
but composites. they burn devastatingly. having a carbon skin's not
going to make damn-all difference to the smell of roasting pork.
> He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering
> colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test
> the plane's crashworthiness."
>
> "Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he
> raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical
> experts."
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boeing180.html
>
> At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 21:07:45
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
jim beam wrote:
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> It looks as if Boeing is imitating RBT:
>>
>> "Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing
>> that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative
>> composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with
>> toxic fumes.
>
> eh? has this nimrod been inside a plane in the last 46 years? nothing
> but composites. they burn devastatingly. having a carbon skin's not
> going to make damn-all difference to the smell of roasting pork.
>
>
>> He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering
>> colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test
>> the plane's crashworthiness."
>>
>> "Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he
>> raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical
>> experts."
>>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boeing180.html
>>
>>
>> At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:6r-dnaAwc7CMb2zbnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> eh? has this nimrod been inside a plane in the last 46 years? nothing
>> but composites. they burn devastatingly. having a carbon skin's not
>> going to make damn-all difference to the smell of roasting pork.
Says your crank buddies at slashdot?
Is this what you learned from metarials skool more than 30 years ago, when
you also learned about non-existent helo rotor composites? Nah wait, that
was just your imagination!
Fraud.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:36:56
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote:
>Is this what you learned from metarials skool more than 30 years ago, when
>you also learned about non-existent helo rotor composites? Nah wait, that
>was just your imagination!
Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
Didn't they start using those on the last generation military choppers?
Jasper
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 19:21:11
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
In article <ppqcf39k8p8bv79ogrohr97g74hi5d45f9@4ax.com >,
Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org > wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>
> >Is this what you learned from metarials skool more than 30 years
> >ago, when you also learned about non-existent helo rotor composites?
> > Nah wait, that was just your imagination!
>
> Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military
> choppers?
jim beam had claimed that composite rotors were used in Viet Nam. The
evidence is clear that he was wrong again.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 17:24:33
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <ppqcf39k8p8bv79ogrohr97g74hi5d45f9@4ax.com>,
> Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>>
>>> Is this what you learned from metarials skool more than 30 years
>>> ago, when you also learned about non-existent helo rotor composites?
>>> Nah wait, that was just your imagination!
>> Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
>> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military
>> choppers?
>
> jim beam had claimed that composite rotors were used in Viet Nam. The
> evidence is clear that he was wrong again.
don't read much, do you? otoh, as a retard, aligning yourself with a
moron is pretty much to be expected.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 11:22:11
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"Jasper Janssen" <jasper@jjanssen.org > wrote in message
news:ppqcf39k8p8bv79ogrohr97g74hi5d45f9@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>
> Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
From 1976 and before, when helo rotors were all metals.
> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military choppers?
Last generation? That's only a couple of decades ago.
Tiger - designed 1984/production 2002
Rooivalk - 1985/1999
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 08:50:05
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> "Jasper Janssen" <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote in message
> news:ppqcf39k8p8bv79ogrohr97g74hi5d45f9@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>>
>> Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
>
> From 1976 and before, when helo rotors were all metals.
er, that's not what the manufacturers think. but what they heck do they
know - jambo, the guy that doesn't know modulus, density, elasticity
[long boring list continues here] knows /way/ more than the guys that
make this stuff... not. moron.
>
>> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military choppers?
>
> Last generation? That's only a couple of decades ago.
>
> Tiger - designed 1984/production 2002
> Rooivalk - 1985/1999
>
it's the 60's. http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html
moron.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:24:59
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:h-CdnWcri6GsFmvbnZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "Jasper Janssen" <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote in message
>> news:ppqcf39k8p8bv79ogrohr97g74hi5d45f9@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>>>
>>> Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
>>
>> From 1976 and before, when helo rotors were all metals.
>
> er, that's not what the manufacturers think. but what they heck do they
> know -
Well, the manufacturers do know what they talk about, but when ignoramus
like you think that metal bonded rotors are the same as composites, as in
the Whittaker quote, and then use that as a dying grasp to prove that
compositehelo rotors were used in Vietnam, you just keep digging yourself
into China.
> jambo, the guy that doesn't know modulus, density, elasticity [long boring
> list continues here] knows /way/ more than the guys that make this
> stuff... not. moron.
Yawn.
>>> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military choppers?
>>
>> Last generation? That's only a couple of decades ago.
>>
>> Tiger - designed 1984/production 2002
>> Rooivalk - 1985/1999
>>
>
> it's the 60's. http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html
>
> moron.
No, it's the late 70s. That article refers to METAL BONDED ROTORS, lying
tard.
But yes, I see it all now.
"jim beam", r.b.t's legendary
- CF Fork Whisperer
- "Mettaleuregits" who attended "muterials skool" more than 30 years ago
- CIA Black Ops operative in Vietnam
- Privvy to CLASSIFIED military information on composites way before they
existed (Was it Bell? Was it "sikorski"? It's all CLASSIFIED)
Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
Okay?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 10:43:18
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:h-CdnWcri6GsFmvbnZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> "Jasper Janssen" <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote in message
>>> news:ppqcf39k8p8bv79ogrohr97g74hi5d45f9@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
>>> From 1976 and before, when helo rotors were all metals.
>> er, that's not what the manufacturers think. but what they heck do they
>> know -
>
> Well, the manufacturers do know what they talk about, but when ignoramus
> like you think that metal bonded rotors are the same as composites, as in
> the Whittaker quote, and then use that as a dying grasp to prove that
> compositehelo rotors were used in Vietnam, you just keep digging yourself
> into China.
you dumb-ass fucking moron!!! read the fucking web site. metal bonding
means they glue metal sheet onto the composite substrate. it doesn't
mean they glue bits of metal together!!! moron.
>
>> jambo, the guy that doesn't know modulus, density, elasticity [long boring
>> list continues here] knows /way/ more than the guys that make this
>> stuff... not. moron.
>
> Yawn.
and you're still a fucking dumb-ass moron!!!
>
>>>> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military choppers?
>>> Last generation? That's only a couple of decades ago.
>>>
>>> Tiger - designed 1984/production 2002
>>> Rooivalk - 1985/1999
>>>
>> it's the 60's. http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html
>>
>> moron.
>
> No, it's the late 70s. That article refers to METAL BONDED ROTORS, lying
> tard.
so http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html is a fabrication? it's
a hoax website i concocted just for your dumb-ass moron benefit???
you're a complete fucking moron!!!
>
> But yes, I see it all now.
>
> "jim beam", r.b.t's legendary
>
> - CF Fork Whisperer
> - "Mettaleuregits" who attended "muterials skool" more than 30 years ago
> - CIA Black Ops operative in Vietnam
> - Privvy to CLASSIFIED military information on composites way before they
> existed (Was it Bell? Was it "sikorski"? It's all CLASSIFIED)
>
> Don't hassle this guy anymore about his sources of info on anything and
> everything - they're CLASSIFIED.
>
> Okay?
>
take your meds moron - your condition will stabilize and the kind
gentlemen in the white coats will be able to loosen the straps on your,
er, "clothes".
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 16:07:54
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:wvmdnQy4bvQqOGvbnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> Well, the manufacturers do know what they talk about, but when ignoramus
>> like you think that metal bonded rotors are the same as composites, as in
>> the Whittaker quote, and then use that as a dying grasp to prove that
>> compositehelo rotors were used in Vietnam, you just keep digging yourself
>> into China.
>
> you dumb-ass fucking moron!!! read the fucking web site. metal bonding
> means they glue metal sheet onto the composite substrate. it doesn't mean
> they glue bits of metal together!!! moron.
No, beamboy. It means that what they were manufacturing were the early
boron-epoxy reinforced METAL ALLOYS. They are METAL COMPOSITES, ignorant
tard.
>>> jambo, the guy that doesn't know modulus, density, elasticity [long
>>> boring list continues here] knows /way/ more than the guys that make
>>> this stuff... not. moron.
>>
>> Yawn.
>
> and you're still a fucking dumb-ass moron!!!
Double yawn.
>
>>
>>>>> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military
>>>>> choppers?
>>>> Last generation? That's only a couple of decades ago.
>>>>
>>>> Tiger - designed 1984/production 2002
>>>> Rooivalk - 1985/1999
>>>>
>>> it's the 60's. http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html
>>>
>>> moron.
>>
>> No, it's the late 70s. That article refers to METAL BONDED ROTORS, lying
>> tard.
>
> so http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html is a fabrication? it's a
> hoax website i concocted just for your dumb-ass moron benefit??? you're a
> complete fucking moron!!!
That's a poor dodge, even for you. Oh, the website's real, alright. But
the history is about METAL BONDED ROTORS, to do with boron-epoxy reinfirced
METAL ALLOYS, lying ignorant tard.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 21:53:42
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:43:18 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net >
wrote:
>you dumb-ass fucking moron!!! read the fucking web site. metal bonding
>means they glue metal sheet onto the composite substrate. it doesn't
>mean they glue bits of metal together!!! moron.
Sure it doesn't mean they bond a metal spar for load-bearing purposes into
the center of the rotor?
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 16:28:34
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"Jasper Janssen" <jasper@jjanssen.org > wrote in message
news:ttndf39mf797dnl3ps8fjgoj0j37ualfjb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:43:18 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net>
> wrote:
>
>>you dumb-ass fucking moron!!! read the fucking web site. metal bonding
>>means they glue metal sheet onto the composite substrate. it doesn't
>>mean they glue bits of metal together!!! moron.
>
> Sure it doesn't mean they bond a metal spar for load-bearing purposes into
> the center of the rotor?
Eh, what would beamboy know? As far as he's concerned, the little tidbit of
info with the word "composite" in it takes him off the firing line for
manufacturing a story on "sikorski" composites.
But it reall doesn't.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 16:43:36
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:43:18 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net>
> wrote:
>
>> you dumb-ass fucking moron!!! read the fucking web site. metal bonding
>> means they glue metal sheet onto the composite substrate. it doesn't
>> mean they glue bits of metal together!!! moron.
>
> Sure it doesn't mean they bond a metal spar for load-bearing purposes into
> the center of the rotor?
>
> Jasper
certain.
http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/standards/images/blade_track.jpg
from:
http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/standards/areas/blade.html
in this instance they're using glass fiber, but that's ancient history -
these days they use carbon. some aerospace museums have these things
sectioned so you can see their construction if you care to visit one in
your local area. very interesting.
while still on the subject of composites, this site describes yet
another composite being used for helicopter rotors in 1947...
http://www.museum-of-flight.org.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=55
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 16:32:54
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:07idneMbgpO1Z2vbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:43:18 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> you dumb-ass fucking moron!!! read the fucking web site. metal bonding
>>> means they glue metal sheet onto the composite substrate. it doesn't
>>> mean they glue bits of metal together!!! moron.
>>
>> Sure it doesn't mean they bond a metal spar for load-bearing purposes
>> into
>> the center of the rotor?
>>
>> Jasper
>
> certain.
> http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/standards/images/blade_track.jpg
Composite rotor blades were introduced for the Chinook CH-47D in 1982. Well
after Vietnam.
Liar.
> from:
> http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/standards/areas/blade.html
>
> in this instance they're using glass fiber, but that's ancient history -
> these days they use carbon. some aerospace museums have these things
> sectioned so you can see their construction if you care to visit one in
> your local area. very interesting.
CH-47D was introduced in 1982:
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/index.htm
Liar.
> while still on the subject of composites, this site describes yet another
> composite being used for helicopter rotors in 1947...
> http://www.museum-of-flight.org.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=55
Yeah, wood with phenolic lacquer. Real smooth, but no cigar, beamboy.
Unless you also think wood = CF composite.
Ignorant lying tard.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 07:40:22
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>
>> Is this what you learned from metarials skool more than 30 years ago, when
>> you also learned about non-existent helo rotor composites? Nah wait, that
>> was just your imagination!
>
> Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military choppers?
>
> Jasper
oooh, naughty question! moron won't like that. especially since
composites have been pretty much a prerequisite on any chopper that's
needed lifting capacity.
from http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html we read:
"In 1960, the Whittaker Corporation acquired the organization, and
operating as Advanced Structures, significant expansion into the
development and fabrication of composite and metal bonded process
technology ensued. <snip > There was a further addition of new products
with the manufacture of panels and rotor blades for Bell Helicopter. The
fabrication of the Huey blades during the Vietnamese War, was a
noteworthy accomplishment. During a 12 month period, Huey blades were
produced at the rate of 36 blades per day. The Monrovia facility, along
with the Peck Road facility, employed as many as 1100 working three
shifts. In 1966, production of the Boeing 737 spoiler assemblies and
Bell Helicopter 206 main and tail rotor blades were also undertaken."
but don't let moron catch you pointing that out - he'll call you all
kinds of cuss-words.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 21:51:27
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:40:22 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net >
wrote:
>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>>
>>> Is this what you learned from metarials skool more than 30 years ago, when
>>> you also learned about non-existent helo rotor composites? Nah wait, that
>>> was just your imagination!
>>
>> Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
>> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military choppers?
>>
>> Jasper
>
>oooh, naughty question! moron won't like that. especially since
>composites have been pretty much a prerequisite on any chopper that's
>needed lifting capacity.
>
>from http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html we read:
>
>"In 1960, the Whittaker Corporation acquired the organization, and
>operating as Advanced Structures, significant expansion into the
>development and fabrication of composite and metal bonded process
>technology ensued. <snip> There was a further addition of new products
>with the manufacture of panels and rotor blades for Bell Helicopter. The
>fabrication of the Huey blades during the Vietnamese War, was a
>noteworthy accomplishment. During a 12 month period, Huey blades were
>produced at the rate of 36 blades per day. The Monrovia facility, along
>with the Peck Road facility, employed as many as 1100 working three
>shifts. In 1966, production of the Boeing 737 spoiler assemblies and
>Bell Helicopter 206 main and tail rotor blades were also undertaken."
Hmm.. a little googling turns up lots of pages talking about 1990s and
beyond projects that are dealing with *all*-composite rotor blades. I
think that might be the disconnect -- all-composite versus some-composite.
I think all-composite should still be taken with a grain of salt, though
-- I suspect there are still metal leading edge covers. Presumably the
main difference is something like steel core/composite wingshape versus
the composite being the actual load-carrying part.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 16:20:33
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"Jasper Janssen" <jasper@jjanssen.org > wrote in message
news:1jndf3pl0mkdnekivj6smnqms5limohp2e@4ax.com...
> Hmm.. a little googling turns up lots of pages talking about 1990s and
> beyond projects that are dealing with *all*-composite rotor blades. I
> think that might be the disconnect -- all-composite versus some-composite.
No. The early "composites" were metal alloys reinforced with epoxy and
materials like boron, not the CF composites common these days. Beamboy is
unaware of that because he's only trying to support his mythical "materials
lecture" with "sikorski" over 30 years ago and bleating on about supposedly
"classified" material before its existence.
He's reaching out to any article he can find which might have a hint of
"Composites from the 60s", but his story has changed - it's no longer
"sikorski" he heard, it's Bell... oh no, actually it's all "CLASSIFIED" so
no one else in the whole wide world would have known about it.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 17:13:41
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:40:22 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net>
> wrote:
>> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is this what you learned from metarials skool more than 30 years ago, when
>>>> you also learned about non-existent helo rotor composites? Nah wait, that
>>>> was just your imagination!
>>> Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
>>> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military choppers?
>>>
>>> Jasper
>> oooh, naughty question! moron won't like that. especially since
>> composites have been pretty much a prerequisite on any chopper that's
>> needed lifting capacity.
>>
>>from http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html we read:
>> "In 1960, the Whittaker Corporation acquired the organization, and
>> operating as Advanced Structures, significant expansion into the
>> development and fabrication of composite and metal bonded process
>> technology ensued. <snip> There was a further addition of new products
>> with the manufacture of panels and rotor blades for Bell Helicopter. The
>> fabrication of the Huey blades during the Vietnamese War, was a
>> noteworthy accomplishment. During a 12 month period, Huey blades were
>> produced at the rate of 36 blades per day. The Monrovia facility, along
>> with the Peck Road facility, employed as many as 1100 working three
>> shifts. In 1966, production of the Boeing 737 spoiler assemblies and
>> Bell Helicopter 206 main and tail rotor blades were also undertaken."
>
> Hmm.. a little googling turns up lots of pages talking about 1990s and
> beyond projects that are dealing with *all*-composite rotor blades. I
> think that might be the disconnect -- all-composite versus some-composite.
> I think all-composite should still be taken with a grain of salt, though
> -- I suspect there are still metal leading edge covers. Presumably the
> main difference is something like steel core/composite wingshape versus
> the composite being the actual load-carrying part.
>
> Jasper
>
the composite is the load bearer. it's a strength to weight thing. a
solid blade with the same lift profile would weigh so much, the a/c
would have very little load capacity. even a metal layered honeycomb
like those used in some engine turbines still has significant weight.
i posted it elsewhere, but i think it worth posting again - this thing
had a composite rotor back in 1947:
http://www.museum-of-flight.org.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=55
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 16:26:10
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:D8CdnZJ34_arnGrbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> the composite is the load bearer.
Bullshit again, beamboy. In the 60s and early 70s, metals were reinforced
with boron epoxy. METAL is the MAIN component.
Boy, you don't give up, do you?
> it's a strength to weight thing. a solid blade with the same lift profile
> would weigh so much, the a/c would have very little load capacity. even a
> metal layered honeycomb like those used in some engine turbines still has
> significant weight.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.... and this supports your "sikorski" story how?
> i posted it elsewhere, but i think it worth posting again - this thing had
> a composite rotor back in 1947:
> http://www.museum-of-flight.org.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=55
Yeah, wood with phenolic lacquer.
Great, this proves your "sikorski" story how?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 20:07:36
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
>>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>>>>> Is this what you learned from metarials skool more than 30 years
>>>>> ago, when you also learned about non-existent helo rotor
>>>>> composites? Nah wait, that was just your imagination!
>>>> Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
>>> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>>> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military choppers?
>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> oooh, naughty question! moron won't like that. especially since
>>> composites have been pretty much a prerequisite on any chopper that's
>>> needed lifting capacity.
>>> from http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html we read:
>>> "In 1960, the Whittaker Corporation acquired the organization, and
>>> operating as Advanced Structures, significant expansion into the
>>> development and fabrication of composite and metal bonded process
>>> technology ensued. <snip> There was a further addition of new
>>> products with the manufacture of panels and rotor blades for Bell
>>> Helicopter. The fabrication of the Huey blades during the Vietnamese
>>> War, was a noteworthy accomplishment. During a 12 month period, Huey
>>> blades were produced at the rate of 36 blades per day. The Monrovia
>>> facility, along with the Peck Road facility, employed as many as 1100
>>> working three shifts. In 1966, production of the Boeing 737 spoiler
>>> assemblies and Bell Helicopter 206 main and tail rotor blades were
>>> also undertaken."
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> Hmm.. a little googling turns up lots of pages talking about 1990s and
>> beyond projects that are dealing with *all*-composite rotor blades. I
>> think that might be the disconnect -- all-composite versus
>> some-composite.
>> I think all-composite should still be taken with a grain of salt, though
>> -- I suspect there are still metal leading edge covers. Presumably the
>> main difference is something like steel core/composite wingshape versus
>> the composite being the actual load-carrying part.
jim beam wrote:
> the composite is the load bearer. it's a strength to weight thing. a
> solid blade with the same lift profile would weigh so much, the a/c
> would have very little load capacity. even a metal layered honeycomb
> like those used in some engine turbines still has significant weight.
>
> i posted it elsewhere, but i think it worth posting again - this thing
> had a composite rotor back in 1947:
> http://www.museum-of-flight.org.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=55
from that page:
"These early helicopters had wooden rotor blades which were balanced by
adding weights at convenient locations. Minor adjustments were also made
by the addition of coating materials such as phenolic lacquer. Blade
pitching moment was adjusted by bending a sheet metal trim tab on the
trailing edge of each rotor"
There was a bicycle factory 3 blocks from here in the 1890s. Were their
maple dowel/cast iron lug frames 'composite' like that wooden rotor?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 21:23:25
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
A Muzi wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>>>>>> Is this what you learned from metarials skool more than 30 years
>>>>>> ago, when you also learned about non-existent helo rotor
>>>>>> composites? Nah wait, that was just your imagination!
>>>>> Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
>
>>>> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>>>> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military
>>>>> choppers?
>
>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> oooh, naughty question! moron won't like that. especially since
>>>> composites have been pretty much a prerequisite on any chopper
>>>> that's needed lifting capacity.
>>>> from http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html we read:
>>>> "In 1960, the Whittaker Corporation acquired the organization, and
>>>> operating as Advanced Structures, significant expansion into the
>>>> development and fabrication of composite and metal bonded process
>>>> technology ensued. <snip> There was a further addition of new
>>>> products with the manufacture of panels and rotor blades for Bell
>>>> Helicopter. The fabrication of the Huey blades during the Vietnamese
>>>> War, was a noteworthy accomplishment. During a 12 month period, Huey
>>>> blades were produced at the rate of 36 blades per day. The Monrovia
>>>> facility, along with the Peck Road facility, employed as many as
>>>> 1100 working three shifts. In 1966, production of the Boeing 737
>>>> spoiler assemblies and Bell Helicopter 206 main and tail rotor
>>>> blades were also undertaken."
>
>> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>> Hmm.. a little googling turns up lots of pages talking about 1990s and
>>> beyond projects that are dealing with *all*-composite rotor blades. I
>>> think that might be the disconnect -- all-composite versus
>>> some-composite.
>>> I think all-composite should still be taken with a grain of salt, though
>>> -- I suspect there are still metal leading edge covers. Presumably the
>>> main difference is something like steel core/composite wingshape versus
>>> the composite being the actual load-carrying part.
>
> jim beam wrote:
>> the composite is the load bearer. it's a strength to weight thing. a
>> solid blade with the same lift profile would weigh so much, the a/c
>> would have very little load capacity. even a metal layered honeycomb
>> like those used in some engine turbines still has significant weight.
>>
>> i posted it elsewhere, but i think it worth posting again - this thing
>> had a composite rotor back in 1947:
>> http://www.museum-of-flight.org.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=55
>
>
> from that page:
> "These early helicopters had wooden rotor blades which were balanced by
> adding weights at convenient locations. Minor adjustments were also made
> by the addition of coating materials such as phenolic lacquer. Blade
> pitching moment was adjusted by bending a sheet metal trim tab on the
> trailing edge of each rotor"
>
> There was a bicycle factory 3 blocks from here in the 1890s. Were their
> maple dowel/cast iron lug frames 'composite' like that wooden rotor?
wood is a "composite". it's long strong fibers with a "glue" matrix
holding them together - just like the man-made composites that are
copied from them.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 16:34:06
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:LeqdnaZVB8kjpmrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> wood is a "composite". it's long strong fibers with a "glue" matrix
> holding them together - just like the man-made composites that are copied
> from them.
So CF composites = wood.
Real winner there, beamboy.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:04:01
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:GpudnZKRVchK52vbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>>
>>> Is this what you learned from metarials skool more than 30 years ago,
>>> when you also learned about non-existent helo rotor composites? Nah
>>> wait, that was just your imagination!
>>
>> Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
>> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military choppers?
>>
>> Jasper
>
> oooh, naughty question! moron won't like that. especially since
> composites have been pretty much a prerequisite on any chopper that's
> needed lifting capacity.
>
> from http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html we read:
>
> "In 1960, the Whittaker Corporation acquired the organization, and
> operating as Advanced Structures, significant expansion into the
> development and fabrication of composite and metal bonded process
> technology ensued. <snip> There was a further addition of new products
> with the manufacture of panels and rotor blades for Bell Helicopter. The
> fabrication of the Huey blades during the Vietnamese War, was a noteworthy
> accomplishment. During a 12 month period, Huey blades were produced at the
> rate of 36 blades per day. The Monrovia facility, along with the Peck Road
> facility, employed as many as 1100 working three shifts. In 1966,
> production of the Boeing 737 spoiler assemblies and Bell Helicopter 206
> main and tail rotor blades were also undertaken."
>
> but don't let moron catch you pointing that out - he'll call you all kinds
> of cuss-words.
Did you really think this will get through the BS filters, beamboy? What a
simpleton you are!
Let's see - the passage
"In 1960, the Whittaker Corporation acquired the organization, and
operating as Advanced Structures, significant expansion into the
development and fabrication of COMPOSITE AND METAL BONDED
technology ensued.
"There was a further addition of new products
with the manufacture of panels and rotor blades for Bell Helicopter. The
fabrication of the Huey blades during the Vietnamese War, was a
noteworthy accomplishment. During a 12 month period, Huey blades were
produced at the rate of 36 blades per day. The Monrovia facility, along
with the Peck Road facility, employed as many as 1100 working three
shifts. In 1966, production of the Boeing 737 spoiler assemblies and
Bell Helicopter 206 main and tail rotor blades were also undertaken."
Now, beamboy, read closely: this passage refers to METAL BONDED ROTORS,
beamboy, NOT COMPOSITES:
Let's see another, more definitive source:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/uh-1y.htm
"UH-1Y Iroquois (Huey)
The mission of the UH-1Y utility helicopter is to provide command and
control and combat assault support under day/night and adverse weather
conditions and special operations support; supporting arms coordination and
aeromedical evacuation. Major modifications include: a new 4-bladed,
composite rotor system with semi-automatic bladefold, new performance
matched transmissions, T700 Engine Digital Electronic Control Units (DECUs),
new 4-bladed tail rotors and drive systems, more effective stabilizers,
upgraded landing gear, tail pylon structural modifications, and common,
fully integrated cockpits and avionics systems.
The fully integrated cockpits will reduce operator workload and improve
situational awareness, thus increasing safety and reducing the rate of
aircraft attrition. They will provide considerable growth potential for
future weapon systems and avionics, which will significantly increase
mission effectiveness and survivability. The cockpits will also include
integration of on-board mission planning, communications, digital fire
control, self-navigation, night targeting, and weapon systems management in
nearly identical crew stations reducing training requirements. This program
maximizes commonality between the two aircraft and provides needed
improvements in crew and passenger survivability, payload, power available,
endurance, range, airspeed, maneuverability and supportability.
The H-1 Upgrade (UH-1Y/AH-1Z) program replaces the current twobladed rotor
system on the UH-1N and AH-1W aircraft with a new fourbladed, all-composite
rotor system coupled with a sophisticated fullyintegrated, state-of-the-art
cockpit. In addition to the new rotor system and cockpit, the H-1 Upgrade
will incorporate a new performancematched transmission, a four-bladed tail
rotor and drive system, and upgraded landing gear for both aircraft.
The UH-1Y incorporates the identical rotor system and dynamic components
which results in maximum commonality and supportability between the two
aircraft. The UH-1Y returns the required aircraft power margin and provides
adequate mission payload and warfighting capability growth potential.
Marking the "beginning of the end" of developmental flight testing for the
AH-1Z and UH-1Y, a UH-1Y "Huey" made the first flight of a fully configured
and functional H-1 Upgrade aircraft 09 October 2003. Coming out of the last
major scheduled modification period that incorporated a moveable elevator
and the Thales "Top Owl" helmet-mounted sight and display (HMSD), the
aircraft will soon begin the final phases of developmental testing before
operational evaluation, the last milestone before a full-rate production
decision, began in the fall of 2004."
Beamboy, the Huey with composite rotors did not arrive until WELL AFTER THE
VIETNAM WAR!
But hey, you also stated that your "metarials lecture" more than 30 years
ago was on "sikorski" military helo composite blades.
Then you further stated that the info was "CLASSIFIED", that's why you knew
before the material even existed.
Now you say it's actually on a BELL HELICOPTER.
You are a confirmed and absolute LIAR, FRAUD, IGNORAMUS.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 10:17:08
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:GpudnZKRVchK52vbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is this what you learned from metarials skool more than 30 years ago,
>>>> when you also learned about non-existent helo rotor composites? Nah
>>>> wait, that was just your imagination!
>>> Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
>>> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military choppers?
>>>
>>> Jasper
>> oooh, naughty question! moron won't like that. especially since
>> composites have been pretty much a prerequisite on any chopper that's
>> needed lifting capacity.
>>
>> from http://www.ducommunaero.com/csd_history.html we read:
>>
>> "In 1960, the Whittaker Corporation acquired the organization, and
>> operating as Advanced Structures, significant expansion into the
>> development and fabrication of composite and metal bonded process
>> technology ensued. <snip> There was a further addition of new products
>> with the manufacture of panels and rotor blades for Bell Helicopter. The
>> fabrication of the Huey blades during the Vietnamese War, was a noteworthy
>> accomplishment. During a 12 month period, Huey blades were produced at the
>> rate of 36 blades per day. The Monrovia facility, along with the Peck Road
>> facility, employed as many as 1100 working three shifts. In 1966,
>> production of the Boeing 737 spoiler assemblies and Bell Helicopter 206
>> main and tail rotor blades were also undertaken."
>>
>> but don't let moron catch you pointing that out - he'll call you all kinds
>> of cuss-words.
>
> Did you really think this will get through the BS filters, beamboy? What a
> simpleton you are!
>
> Let's see - the passage
> "In 1960, the Whittaker Corporation acquired the organization, and
> operating as Advanced Structures, significant expansion into the
> development and fabrication of COMPOSITE AND METAL BONDED
> technology ensued.
>
> "There was a further addition of new products
> with the manufacture of panels and rotor blades for Bell Helicopter. The
> fabrication of the Huey blades during the Vietnamese War, was a
> noteworthy accomplishment. During a 12 month period, Huey blades were
> produced at the rate of 36 blades per day. The Monrovia facility, along
> with the Peck Road facility, employed as many as 1100 working three
> shifts. In 1966, production of the Boeing 737 spoiler assemblies and
> Bell Helicopter 206 main and tail rotor blades were also undertaken."
>
> Now, beamboy, read closely: this passage refers to METAL BONDED ROTORS,
> beamboy, NOT COMPOSITES:
er, read the rest of the article, moron. the whole facility was
dedicated to composites production. the metal was bonded to the
composite for protection. like leading edges.
>
> Let's see another, more definitive source:
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/uh-1y.htm
> "UH-1Y Iroquois (Huey)
> The mission of the UH-1Y utility helicopter is to provide command and
> control and combat assault support under day/night and adverse weather
> conditions and special operations support; supporting arms coordination and
> aeromedical evacuation. Major modifications include: a new 4-bladed,
> composite rotor system with semi-automatic bladefold, new performance
> matched transmissions, T700 Engine Digital Electronic Control Units (DECUs),
> new 4-bladed tail rotors and drive systems, more effective stabilizers,
> upgraded landing gear, tail pylon structural modifications, and common,
> fully integrated cockpits and avionics systems.
>
> The fully integrated cockpits will reduce operator workload and improve
> situational awareness, thus increasing safety and reducing the rate of
> aircraft attrition. They will provide considerable growth potential for
> future weapon systems and avionics, which will significantly increase
> mission effectiveness and survivability. The cockpits will also include
> integration of on-board mission planning, communications, digital fire
> control, self-navigation, night targeting, and weapon systems management in
> nearly identical crew stations reducing training requirements. This program
> maximizes commonality between the two aircraft and provides needed
> improvements in crew and passenger survivability, payload, power available,
> endurance, range, airspeed, maneuverability and supportability.
>
> The H-1 Upgrade (UH-1Y/AH-1Z) program replaces the current twobladed rotor
> system on the UH-1N and AH-1W aircraft with a new fourbladed, all-composite
> rotor system coupled with a sophisticated fullyintegrated, state-of-the-art
> cockpit. In addition to the new rotor system and cockpit, the H-1 Upgrade
> will incorporate a new performancematched transmission, a four-bladed tail
> rotor and drive system, and upgraded landing gear for both aircraft.
>
> The UH-1Y incorporates the identical rotor system and dynamic components
> which results in maximum commonality and supportability between the two
> aircraft. The UH-1Y returns the required aircraft power margin and provides
> adequate mission payload and warfighting capability growth potential.
>
> Marking the "beginning of the end" of developmental flight testing for the
> AH-1Z and UH-1Y, a UH-1Y "Huey" made the first flight of a fully configured
> and functional H-1 Upgrade aircraft 09 October 2003. Coming out of the last
> major scheduled modification period that incorporated a moveable elevator
> and the Thales "Top Owl" helmet-mounted sight and display (HMSD), the
> aircraft will soon begin the final phases of developmental testing before
> operational evaluation, the last milestone before a full-rate production
> decision, began in the fall of 2004."
>
> Beamboy, the Huey with composite rotors did not arrive until WELL AFTER THE
> VIETNAM WAR!
you fucking moron!!! just because "huey" derivatives are still used
today doesn't mean vietnam era versions didn't use composites because
they did - the manufacturer of the blades says so!!! and they were
doing it in the 60's - just in time for the gulf of tonkin - the
manufacturer of the blades says so!!!
>
> But hey, you also stated that your "metarials lecture" more than 30 years
> ago was on "sikorski" military helo composite blades.
> Then you further stated that the info was "CLASSIFIED", that's why you knew
> before the material even existed.
>
> Now you say it's actually on a BELL HELICOPTER.
>
> You are a confirmed and absolute LIAR, FRAUD, IGNORAMUS.
you fucking moron, they were /all/ starting to use composite blades at
that time. it was the only way to get the extreme strength/weight
ratios necessary for a chopper to carry any decent payload!!! the
fatigue improvement and damage tolerance were pure gravy.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 13:02:25
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:pZadnUflYv8LAmvbnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> Now, beamboy, read closely: this passage refers to METAL BONDED ROTORS,
>> beamboy, NOT COMPOSITES:
>
> er, read the rest of the article, moron. the whole facility was dedicated
> to composites production. the metal was bonded to the composite for
> protection. like leading edges.
Er, read your history, beamboy. BELL Hueys and Cobras, Sikorsky Chinooks,
and ALL OTHER military helos used in Vietnam NEVER HAD COMPOSITE ROTORS.
Now let's read that passage again, properly this time.
1. "In 1960, the Whittaker Corporation acquired the organization, and
operating as Advanced Structures, significant expansion into the development
and fabrication of composite and metal bonded process technology ensued."
That's great.
2. "Components were manufactured for the Douglas DC-8 aircraft and the
McDonnell F4H fighter, in addition to a continuing contribution to Boeing
and Northrop products."
That's great. But were these components composites? Let's see - the
company manufactured boron-epoxy composite-reinforced METAL ALLOYS which
were investigated for use in 1971 (hint: NOT Carbon Fiber)
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0178033
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=631070&id=4&qs=N%3D4294912147
Clear on that beamboy?
3."There was a further addition of new products with the manufacture of
panels and rotor blades for Bell Helicopter."
Note that this DOES NOT say these new components were CF COMPOSITES. But
let's go on:
4."The fabrication of the Huey blades during the Vietnamese War, was a
noteworthy accomplishment. During a 12 month period, Huey blades were
produced at the rate of 36 blades per day. The Monrovia facility, along with
the Peck Road facility, employed as many as 1100 working three shifts."
Let's check history - Bell Helicopter Hueys -
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/uh_1y/
http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/aahist2.htm#UH1D
"The UH-1 had a two-bladed semi-rigid metal main rotor, a two-bladed
semi-rigid metal tail rotor and had a speed of 104 mph (90 knots)."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/uh-1-upgrades.htm
"The H-1 Upgrade (UH-1Y/AH-1Z) program replaces the current two-bladed rotor
system on the UH- 1N and AH-1W aircraft with a new four-bladed,
all-composite rotor system coupled with a sophisticated, fully integrated,
state-of the-art cockpit. "
This means that the ONLY HUEY with CF composite rotors is part of the H-1
upgrade, which started in 2005.
Clear on that beamboy?
5. "In 1966, production of the Boeing 737 spoiler assemblies and Bell
Helicopter 206 main and tail rotor blades were also undertaken."
The 206 is a civilian helo.
Clear on that beamboy?
Your death grasp of anything, absolutely anything at all, to try to make
your "black ops" materials lecture story really is quite desperately
pathetically funny!
>>
>> Let's see another, more definitive source:
>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/uh-1y.htm
>>
>> Beamboy, the Huey with composite rotors did not arrive until WELL AFTER
>> THE VIETNAM WAR!
>
> you fucking moron!!! just because "huey" derivatives are still used today
> doesn't mean vietnam era versions didn't use composites because they did -
> the manufacturer of the blades says so!!!
Uh, no they didn't. They merely pointed out that they were manufacturing
blades for the Hueys in the 60s. They DO NOT state at all that they
manufactured CF composites in the 60s that saw service in Vietnam. See
above.
> and they were doing it in the 60's -
They were manufacturing blades, but not CF composites. Metal ones, beamboy,
metal ones.
> just in time for the gulf of tonkin - the manufacturer of the blades says
> so!!!
Yeah yeah, Gulf of Tonkin Shmonkin...see above. The blades were Boron epoxy
reinforced METAL ALLOYS, not CF composites.
>> But hey, you also stated that your "metarials lecture" more than 30 years
>> ago was on "sikorski" military helo composite blades.
>> Then you further stated that the info was "CLASSIFIED", that's why you
>> knew before the material even existed.
>>
>> Now you say it's actually on a BELL HELICOPTER.
>>
>> You are a confirmed and absolute LIAR, FRAUD, IGNORAMUS.
>
> you fucking moron, they were /all/ starting to use composite blades at
> that time.
"They"? Who are "they"? Oh wait, it's all CLASSIFIED...
> it was the only way to get the extreme strength/weight ratios necessary
> for a chopper to carry any decent payload!!! the fatigue improvement and
> damage tolerance were pure gravy.
Yadda, yadda, yadda....
I say it again, lying tard:
But hey, you also stated that your "metarials lecture" more than 30 years
ago was on "sikorski" military helo composite blades.
Then you further stated that the info was "CLASSIFIED", that's why you knew
before the material even existed.
Now you say it's actually on a BELL HELICOPTER.
It's "sikorski"! No, it's Bell! Ah, it's all CLASSIFIED, so it coulda been
ANYTHING!
You are a confirmed and absolute LIAR, FRAUD, IGNORAMUS.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 14:26:36
From: _
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:36:56 GMT, Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:23:55 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>
>>Is this what you learned from metarials skool more than 30 years ago, when
>>you also learned about non-existent helo rotor composites? Nah wait, that
>>was just your imagination!
>
> Wait, what? Since when do main rotor blades not exist as composites?
> Didn't they start using those on the last generation military choppers?
>
> Jasper
The claim, apparently, is that "jim beam" says they had these on
helicopters during the Vietnam war era.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 23:41:55
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:a241f39j060ig42itei5gfjc28k1t0qljp@4ax.com...
> It looks as if Boeing is imitating RBT:
>
> "Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing
> that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative
> composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with
> toxic fumes. He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering
> colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test
> the plane's crashworthiness."
>
> "Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he
> raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical
> experts."
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boeing180.html
>
> At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
There are many types of composites in aircraft - the differences are mainly
in the resin (or matrix) properties and methods of manufacture. It's almost
a certainty that the composites used in the 787 are not used by bike
manufacturers (the latter using cheaper alternatives).
But hey, we all just need to calm the f&^* down. According to r.b.t.'s
resident "metallurgist" (he went to materials skool), all Boeing needs to do
is listen to the composites - they will either talk or sing before they fail
(and burn), in plenty of time beforehand. It's a perfect job for a CF
Whisperer!
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 14:52:10
From: SMS
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> But hey, we all just need to calm the f&^* down. According to r.b.t.'s
> resident "metallurgist" (he went to materials skool), all Boeing needs to do
> is listen to the composites - they will either talk or sing before they fail
> (and burn), in plenty of time beforehand. It's a perfect job for a CF
> Whisperer!
The aluminum they use may be different too.
Don't forget about the undetected fatigue induced cracks on Aloha
Airlines flight 243.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/2001/Jan/18/118localnews1.html
This was never supposed to happen of course, but on short haul planes
with a high number of compressions/decompressions, it's a problem.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 21:52:49
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
SMS wrote:
> Jambo wrote:
>
>> But hey, we all just need to calm the f&^* down. According to
>> r.b.t.'s resident "metallurgist" (he went to materials skool), all
>> Boeing needs to do is listen to the composites - they will either talk
>> or sing before they fail (and burn), in plenty of time beforehand.
>> It's a perfect job for a CF Whisperer!
>
> The aluminum they use may be different too.
>
> Don't forget about the undetected fatigue induced cracks on Aloha
> Airlines flight 243.
>
> http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/2001/Jan/18/118localnews1.html
>
> This was never supposed to happen of course, but on short haul planes
> with a high number of compressions/decompressions, it's a problem.
of course - metal fatigue is a major problem. in fact, it's such a big
problem that you assume it /is/ going to happen, then inspect and
replace accordingly. composites otoh can have significantly better
fatigue characteristics. that plus better strength and lower weight
make it a very useful material.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 14:50:39
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:5eadndvKhdO_CWXbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> SMS wrote:
>> Jambo wrote:
>>
>>> But hey, we all just need to calm the f&^* down. According to r.b.t.'s
>>> resident "metallurgist" (he went to materials skool), all Boeing needs
>>> to do is listen to the composites - they will either talk or sing before
>>> they fail (and burn), in plenty of time beforehand. It's a perfect job
>>> for a CF Whisperer!
>>
>> The aluminum they use may be different too.
>>
>> Don't forget about the undetected fatigue induced cracks on Aloha
>> Airlines flight 243.
>>
>> http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/2001/Jan/18/118localnews1.html
>>
>> This was never supposed to happen of course, but on short haul planes
>> with a high number of compressions/decompressions, it's a problem.
>
> of course - metal fatigue is a major problem. in fact, it's such a big
> problem that you assume it /is/ going to happen, then inspect and replace
> accordingly.
Eh, nope. Aluminum components in aircraft have defined cycle lives - these
fatigue lives are calculable and determined at the design stage, with
knowledge of the particular alloys' characteristics (using coupon testing
among other things) and the loads imposed upon them. Aircraft manufacturers
and operators NEVER assume that metal fatigue is going to happen - they make
sure it never does. The design fatigue life, monitored cyclic loads, plus
regular inspections for damage not anticipated (due to overloads or
unintended impact) are all considered in the course of operating the
aircraft, and components are replaced/repaired regardless of whether there
is detectable fatigue damage or not. Some aircraft components have
allowable crack size limits before replacement, but critical parts seldom
do.
> composites otoh can have significantly better fatigue characteristics.
So what? As above, the design fatigue life, monitored cyclic loads, plus
regular inspections for damage not anticipated (due to overloads or
unintended impact) are all considered in the course of operating the
aircraft, and components are replaced/repaired regardless of whether there
is detectable fatigue damage or not. In the case of CF composites,
detection of damage is inherently more difficult due to the higher
likelihood of non-visual damage indications, and the lower damage tolerance
of epoxy-polymer matrices, hence inspection is more rigorous.
> that plus better strength and lower weight make it a very useful material.
Who ever said CF wasn't useful? On the other hand, who said that CF is a
magic material immune to all metal shortcomings?
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 09:42:58
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
> There are many types of composites in aircraft - the differences are
> mainly in the resin (or matrix) properties and methods of manufacture.
> It's almost a certainty that the composites used in the 787 are not used
> by bike manufacturers (the latter using cheaper alternatives).
This is categorically untrue. Presently, the domestic carbon fiber bike
industry (at least one manufacturer anyway) is using a high-modulus carbon
fiber that is not allowed to be exported into China (or many other
countries). This stuff is very expensive, extraordinarily high-quality and
has many military applications.
Boeing has spent a fair amount of time in Waterloo, Wisconsin lately.
Perhaps you can figure out why.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote in message
news:46f09a53$0$28801$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:a241f39j060ig42itei5gfjc28k1t0qljp@4ax.com...
>> It looks as if Boeing is imitating RBT:
>>
>> "Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing
>> that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative
>> composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with
>> toxic fumes. He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering
>> colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test
>> the plane's crashworthiness."
>>
>> "Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he
>> raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical
>> experts."
>>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boeing180.html
>>
>> At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
>
> There are many types of composites in aircraft - the differences are
> mainly in the resin (or matrix) properties and methods of manufacture.
> It's almost a certainty that the composites used in the 787 are not used
> by bike manufacturers (the latter using cheaper alternatives).
>
> But hey, we all just need to calm the f&^* down. According to r.b.t.'s
> resident "metallurgist" (he went to materials skool), all Boeing needs to
> do is listen to the composites - they will either talk or sing before they
> fail (and burn), in plenty of time beforehand. It's a perfect job for a
> CF Whisperer!
>
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 14:34:31
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote in message
news:nkcIi.4937$Sd4.477@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> There are many types of composites in aircraft - the differences are
>> mainly in the resin (or matrix) properties and methods of manufacture.
>> It's almost a certainty that the composites used in the 787 are not used
>> by bike manufacturers (the latter using cheaper alternatives).
>
> This is categorically untrue. Presently, the domestic carbon fiber bike
> industry (at least one manufacturer anyway) is using a high-modulus carbon
> fiber that is not allowed to be exported into China (or many other
> countries). This stuff is very expensive, extraordinarily high-quality and
> has many military applications.
I'm not sure you read my statement correctly. The fact that some carbon
fiber types are not allowed export to China says nothing about whether 787
composites are used in the bike industry. As I've stated, there are many
types of composites.
You need to remember that composite components, and the particular composite
material used, are chosen specifically for the intended use. Since the 787
composites are new, and have specialist characteristics desirable for the
aircraft itself, not least Boeing's specific requirement to meet its own
BMS8-276 specification for primary structure prepregs
(http://www.compositesworld.com/hpc/issues/2007/May/111535), it is almost a
certainty that the composites used in the 787 are not used by bike
manufacturers (the latter using cheaper alternatives).
Here's an extract from the ref:
"Without doubt, the largest supplier of 787 composite materials is Toray
Industries (Tokyo, Japan). The company is providing its trademarked Torayca
3900-series highly toughened carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy prepreg for the
787's primary structure in unidirectional tape (various widths), narrow slit
tape (for fiber placement), and woven fabric forms. The majority of the
3900-series materials will be made with intermediate modulus T800S fiber.
According to Earl Benton, director of sales and marketing for Toray's U.S.
subsidiary Toray Composites (America) Inc. (TCA, Tacoma, Wash.), the T800S
fiber, which replaced the T800H fiber used initially on the Boeing 777, is
the result of improved carbon fiber manufacturing processes, which result in
higher production rates, and better availability without sacrificing
mechanical performance or the company's ability to meet Boeing's rigorous
BMS8-276 specification for primary structure prepregs. Boeing qualified the
prepreg's basic unidirectional product form for the 777 prior to 2004, in
advance of the 787 program."
On the other hand, if you are saying that the bike industry is NOT using
cheaper alternatives to 787 composites, you will have to cite the bike
composite material you think is as expensive as the 787 composite.
In the matter of CF export prohibitions from the US to China, it's a
relatively new regulation (2007); see
http://www.hklaw.com/Publications/Newsletters.asp?IssueID=810&Article=4172
"Under What Circumstances Do the New Restrictions Apply?
Licensing restrictions apply if: (1) a product, software or technology is
identified in the expanded list of controlled items; and (2) the U.S.
exporter knows or has reason to know that the item is going to a military
end-use."
Which Products, Software and Technology Are Included on the New List of
Controlled Items?
Listed Items
The list of products, software and technology are all items already
identified on the Commerce Control List (CCL) of controlled dual-use goods.
However, the new restrictions apply to items that, prior to issuance of this
regulation, could generally be exported without a license to any country and
entity person - except embargoed countries and certain prohibited
end-users/end-uses. The list identifies products from various categories -
including, but not limited to, the following:
a.. aircraft
b.. aero gas turbine engines
c.. airborne communication and navigation systems
d.. carbon fiber and prepregs for use in composite structures
e.. hydraulic fluids "
etc.....
> Boeing has spent a fair amount of time in Waterloo, Wisconsin lately.
> Perhaps you can figure out why.
Could be a gazillion things. Possibilities:
- Trek contracts Boeing QC expertise in manufacturing their carbon fiber
frames
- Seek Boeing expertise in damage assessment
- Licence Boeing composites for Trek bike frames
Why don't you use your contacts to find out?
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 21:42:04
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:a241f39j060ig42itei5gfjc28k1t0qljp@4ax.com...
>> It looks as if Boeing is imitating RBT:
>>
>> "Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing
>> that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative
>> composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with
>> toxic fumes. He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering
>> colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test
>> the plane's crashworthiness."
>>
>> "Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he
>> raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical
>> experts."
>>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boeing180.html
>>
>> At least we don't worry about carbon fiber bicycle frames burning.
>
> There are many types of composites in aircraft - the differences are mainly
> in the resin (or matrix) properties and methods of manufacture. It's almost
> a certainty that the composites used in the 787 are not used by bike
> manufacturers (the latter using cheaper alternatives).
>
> But hey, we all just need to calm the f&^* down. According to r.b.t.'s
> resident "metallurgist" (he went to materials skool), all Boeing needs to do
> is listen to the composites - they will either talk or sing before they fail
> (and burn), in plenty of time beforehand. It's a perfect job for a CF
> Whisperer!
>
>
hey moron, you figured out what "plasticity" is yet?
hey moron, you figured out what "density" is yet?
hey moron, you figured out what "modulus" is yet?
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:32:44
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:42:04 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net >
wrote:
>hey moron, you figured out what "plasticity" is yet?
>hey moron, you figured out what "density" is yet?
>hey moron, you figured out what "modulus" is yet?
Jim Beam was always a little off-kilter, but when did he move over into
full-blown usenet crank?
Jasper
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 19:24:45
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
In article <fiqcf3dai14s9ahv448qnsnauv21cb8or5@4ax.com >,
Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org > wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:42:04 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net>
> wrote:
>
> >hey moron, you figured out what "plasticity" is yet?
> >hey moron, you figured out what "density" is yet?
> >hey moron, you figured out what "modulus" is yet?
>
> Jim Beam was always a little off-kilter, but when did he move over into
> full-blown usenet crank?
Couple years back. The first disk brake ejection force thread was when
he tipped into loonyland.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 21:08:36
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <fiqcf3dai14s9ahv448qnsnauv21cb8or5@4ax.com>,
> Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:42:04 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> hey moron, you figured out what "plasticity" is yet?
>>> hey moron, you figured out what "density" is yet?
>>> hey moron, you figured out what "modulus" is yet?
>> Jim Beam was always a little off-kilter, but when did he move over into
>> full-blown usenet crank?
>
> Couple years back. The first disk brake ejection force thread was when
> he tipped into loonyland.
yeah, real looney land - arguing with a retard that can't see how 1,600N
ejection force is *not* greater than 5,000N retention force.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 01:43:58
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:08:36 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net >
wrote:
>Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Couple years back. The first disk brake ejection force thread was when
>> he tipped into loonyland.
>
>yeah, real looney land - arguing with a retard that can't see how 1,600N
>ejection force is *not* greater than 5,000N retention force.
1600 and 5000 if "typical" numbers (or were they absolute worst case
scenario numbers? I forget), are close enough that peak stresses could be
problematic, I suspect.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 21:52:21
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:08:36 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net>
> wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>>> Couple years back. The first disk brake ejection force thread was when
>>> he tipped into loonyland.
>> yeah, real looney land - arguing with a retard that can't see how 1,600N
>> ejection force is *not* greater than 5,000N retention force.
>
> 1600 and 5000 if "typical" numbers (or were they absolute worst case
> scenario numbers? I forget), are close enough that peak stresses could be
> problematic, I suspect.
>
> Jasper
1,600 /is/ the peak. and 5,000 was the guesstimate for retention based
on the axle face serrations alone - ignoring the much greater retentive
abilities of lawyer lips.
but that's not the issue - the issue is timmy trying to argue that there
are situations where 1,600 > 5,000!!! argue the mechanics, if relevant,
but don't argue the math - that's retarded.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 07:44:04
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:42:04 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net>
> wrote:
>
>> hey moron, you figured out what "plasticity" is yet?
>> hey moron, you figured out what "density" is yet?
>> hey moron, you figured out what "modulus" is yet?
>
> Jim Beam was always a little off-kilter, but when did he move over into
> full-blown usenet crank?
>
> Jasper
get the science right and i'll keep my kilt _on_. [and i'm not little,
thanks.]
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:04:26
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:GpudnYyRVcgp5mvbnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:42:04 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> hey moron, you figured out what "plasticity" is yet?
>>> hey moron, you figured out what "density" is yet?
>>> hey moron, you figured out what "modulus" is yet?
>>
>> Jim Beam was always a little off-kilter, but when did he move over into
>> full-blown usenet crank?
>>
>> Jasper
>
> get the science right and i'll keep my kilt _on_. [and i'm not little,
> thanks.]
No, you're a BIG FRAUD.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 10:19:12
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:GpudnYyRVcgp5mvbnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:42:04 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> hey moron, you figured out what "plasticity" is yet?
>>>> hey moron, you figured out what "density" is yet?
>>>> hey moron, you figured out what "modulus" is yet?
>>> Jim Beam was always a little off-kilter, but when did he move over into
>>> full-blown usenet crank?
>>>
>>> Jasper
>> get the science right and i'll keep my kilt _on_. [and i'm not little,
>> thanks.]
>
> No, you're a BIG FRAUD.
sure i am. i'm brilliant with photoshop too.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/
fucking moron.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 13:07:39
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:pZadnUblYv-MPWvbnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> No, you're a BIG FRAUD.
>
> sure i am. i'm brilliant with photoshop too.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/
>
> fucking moron.
HAHAHA! These are my favorites:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1208725721/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/327752060/
The "checks" and "crosses" really add to the primary school feel of the
drawings!
Do you really think that juvenile copying drawings from text books, showing
unitless stress train graphs, and taking photos of commercial cut components
all substitute for "metallurgy" qualifications?
Thanks for showing us those beamboy, you've really cemented your
qualifications as IGNORANT and FRAUDULENT.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 14:23:59
From: _
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:32:44 GMT, Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:42:04 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net>
> wrote:
>
>>hey moron, you figured out what "plasticity" is yet?
>>hey moron, you figured out what "density" is yet?
>>hey moron, you figured out what "modulus" is yet?
>
> Jim Beam was always a little off-kilter, but when did he move over into
> full-blown usenet crank?
>
He's a troll - and what he wants is an argument. He doesn't care about
being right (just look at the techniques he uses - changing positions as
soon as the fallacies are uncovered, starting new threads with old topics
to keep them on the top of the list, using profanity as proof, etcetera);
he just wants someone to play with. "Jambo" is obliging, but from outside
it looks more and more like two pigs wrestling - and the muddier it gets,
the better "jim beam" likes it.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 14:38:31
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:UKedne5lDJEANW3bnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> But hey, we all just need to calm the f&^* down. According to r.b.t.'s
>> resident "metallurgist" (he went to materials skool), all Boeing needs to
>> do is listen to the composites - they will either talk or sing before
>> they fail (and burn), in plenty of time beforehand. It's a perfect job
>> for a CF Whisperer!
>
> hey moron, you figured out what "plasticity" is yet?
Why yes, beamboy. Metal is NOT plastic, no matter how much you try to spin
it.
> hey moron, you figured out what "density" is yet?
Why yes, beamboy. Look at my other post for my definitive definition of
"weight" and "density", in terms you can understand!
> hey moron, you figured out what "modulus" is yet?
Why yes, beamboy. Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, no matter how much
you try to spin it.
Can you provide some advice? If I go to "materials skool", will I also be
able to hear CF talking or singing to me before they fail? I want to start
my own company, CF Whisperers Inc.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 20:42:58
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:UKedne5lDJEANW3bnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> But hey, we all just need to calm the f&^* down. According to r.b.t.'s
>>> resident "metallurgist" (he went to materials skool), all Boeing needs to
>>> do is listen to the composites - they will either talk or sing before
>>> they fail (and burn), in plenty of time beforehand. It's a perfect job
>>> for a CF Whisperer!
>> hey moron, you figured out what "plasticity" is yet?
>
> Why yes, beamboy. Metal is NOT plastic, no matter how much you try to spin
> it.
it deforms plastically, moron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity_%28physics%29
>
>> hey moron, you figured out what "density" is yet?
>
> Why yes, beamboy. Look at my other post for my definitive definition of
> "weight" and "density", in terms you can understand!
er, you defined "modulus" "strength / weight". google the archive if
you can't believe your own incredibly moronic mistake. and then you
fucked up the definition of specific modulus too!
>
>> hey moron, you figured out what "modulus" is yet?
>
> Why yes, beamboy. Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, no matter how much
> you try to spin it.
see above.
>
> Can you provide some advice? If I go to "materials skool", will I also be
> able to hear CF talking or singing to me before they fail? I want to start
> my own company, CF Whisperers Inc.
moron.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 12:19:49
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:y6GdnesYXqDecWzbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> Why yes, beamboy. Metal is NOT plastic, no matter how much you try to
>> spin it.
>
> it deforms plastically, moron.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity_%28physics%29
Er, but that's not what you claimed, was it beamboy?
"CF is not plastic like metal"
Fraud.
>> Why yes, beamboy. Look at my other post for my definitive definition of
>> "weight" and "density", in terms you can understand!
>
> er, you defined "modulus" "strength / weight". google the archive if you
> can't believe your own incredibly moronic mistake.
I don't see it, beamboy. However, specific modulus is STILL not equal to
Young's modulus.
> and then you fucked up the definition of specific modulus too!
Really? When Google shows it's you who fucked up? Fraud.
>>> hey moron, you figured out what "modulus" is yet?
>>
>> Why yes, beamboy. Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, no matter how
>> much you try to spin it.
>
> see above.
Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, no matter how much
you try to spin it.
>> Can you provide some advice? If I go to "materials skool", will I also
>> be able to hear CF talking or singing to me before they fail? I want to
>> start my own company, CF Whisperers Inc.
>
> moron.
Does that mean no?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 18:41:00
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:y6GdnesYXqDecWzbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>
>>> Why yes, beamboy. Metal is NOT plastic, no matter how much you try to
>>> spin it.
>> it deforms plastically, moron.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity_%28physics%29
>
> Er, but that's not what you claimed, was it beamboy?
eh? did you read what i said??? don't you understand the graph??? do
you see the bit where plasticity is clearly labeled??? metal deforms
plastically!!! absolute fucking moron.
>
> "CF is not plastic like metal"
cfrp /doesn't/ deform plastically like metal, it's all elastic, moron.
>
> Fraud.
>
>>> Why yes, beamboy. Look at my other post for my definitive definition of
>>> "weight" and "density", in terms you can understand!
>> er, you defined "modulus" "strength / weight". google the archive if you
>> can't believe your own incredibly moronic mistake.
>
> I don't see it, beamboy. However, specific modulus is STILL not equal to
> Young's modulus.
don't misquote me, moron.
>
>> and then you fucked up the definition of specific modulus too!
>
> Really? When Google shows it's you who fucked up? Fraud.
er, "modulus is strength to weight" is your fuck-up, moron, not mine.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/637919f8594e0e38
>
>>>> hey moron, you figured out what "modulus" is yet?
>>> Why yes, beamboy. Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, no matter how
>>> much you try to spin it.
>> see above.
>
> Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, no matter how much
> you try to spin it.
that's your fuck-up moron, not mine.
>
>>> Can you provide some advice? If I go to "materials skool", will I also
>>> be able to hear CF talking or singing to me before they fail? I want to
>>> start my own company, CF Whisperers Inc.
>> moron.
>
> Does that mean no?
no, it means you're a moron. moron.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 23:40:15
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:ismdnUwuXcEx72nbnZ2dnUVZ_urinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:y6GdnesYXqDecWzbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> Jambo wrote:
>>
>>>> Why yes, beamboy. Metal is NOT plastic, no matter how much you try to
>>>> spin it.
>>> it deforms plastically, moron.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity_%28physics%29
>>
>> Er, but that's not what you claimed, was it beamboy?
>
> eh? did you read what i said???
Yes, I did. This is what you said:
"CF is not plastic like metal"
Google it beamboy, you do the work.
> don't you understand the graph??? do you see the bit where plasticity is
> clearly labeled??? metal deforms plastically!!! absolute fucking moron.
Er, but that's not what you claimed, was it beamboy? Yawn.
>>
>> "CF is not plastic like metal"
>
> cfrp /doesn't/ deform plastically like metal, it's all elastic, moron.
That's not the same as what you said, was it beamboy? Liar AND a fucktard.
>>> er, you defined "modulus" "strength / weight". google the archive if
>>> you can't believe your own incredibly moronic mistake.
>>
>> I don't see it, beamboy. However, specific modulus is STILL not equal to
>> Young's modulus.
>
> don't misquote me, moron.
No need to, look at the archive you provided elsewhere, beamboy.
> er, "modulus is strength to weight" is your fuck-up, moron, not mine.
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/637919f8594e0e38
>
Yeah, but see my post on that, beamboy. Lying fucktard.
>> Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, no matter how much
>> you try to spin it.
>
> that's your fuck-up moron, not mine.
No, it's the scientific community and the laws of physics that state that
fact, not me. Your mistake, sorry.
>>>> Can you provide some advice? If I go to "materials skool", will I also
>>>> be able to hear CF talking or singing to me before they fail? I want
>>>> to start my own company, CF Whisperers Inc.
>>> moron.
>>
>> Does that mean no?
>
> no, it means you're a moron. moron.
So I can take that as a "no"?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 07:21:45
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:ismdnUwuXcEx72nbnZ2dnUVZ_urinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:y6GdnesYXqDecWzbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> Jambo wrote:
>>>>> Why yes, beamboy. Metal is NOT plastic, no matter how much you try to
>>>>> spin it.
>>>> it deforms plastically, moron.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity_%28physics%29
>>> Er, but that's not what you claimed, was it beamboy?
>> eh? did you read what i said???
>
> Yes, I did. This is what you said:
> "CF is not plastic like metal"
>
> Google it beamboy, you do the work.
er, i /did/ read it you fucking moron, and your dumb ass thinks
"plastic" means polymer!!! spectacular stupidity from a complete
fucking moron that can't even look this shit up.
>
>> don't you understand the graph??? do you see the bit where plasticity is
>> clearly labeled??? metal deforms plastically!!! absolute fucking moron.
>
> Er, but that's not what you claimed, was it beamboy? Yawn.
er, what part of "metal deforms plastically" don't you understand? you
bullshit stupid stupid stupid fucking moron.
>
>>> "CF is not plastic like metal"
>> cfrp /doesn't/ deform plastically like metal, it's all elastic, moron.
>
> That's not the same as what you said, was it beamboy? Liar AND a fucktard.
learn what "plasticity" is you fucking moron. then you won't be so
fucking moronic with the bullshit you try putting in other people's
mouths and get it so spectacularly moronically wrong!!!
>
>>>> er, you defined "modulus" "strength / weight". google the archive if
>>>> you can't believe your own incredibly moronic mistake.
>>> I don't see it, beamboy. However, specific modulus is STILL not equal to
>>> Young's modulus.
>> don't misquote me, moron.
>
> No need to, look at the archive you provided elsewhere, beamboy.
>
>> er, "modulus is strength to weight" is your fuck-up, moron, not mine.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/637919f8594e0e38
>>
>
> Yeah, but see my post on that, beamboy. Lying fucktard.
the one where you fuck it up yet again? that sure is convincingly
fucking moronic!
>
>>> Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, no matter how much
>>> you try to spin it.
>> that's your fuck-up moron, not mine.
>
> No, it's the scientific community and the laws of physics that state that
> fact, not me. Your mistake, sorry.
you're correct that modulus is not specific modulus - one is a
derivative of the other. but when your dumb moronic ass states "modulus
is strength to weight", it's clear you don't understand the difference
and you're trying to accuse me of your own dumb moron mistake. what a
fucking moron!
>
>>>>> Can you provide some advice? If I go to "materials skool", will I also
>>>>> be able to hear CF talking or singing to me before they fail? I want
>>>>> to start my own company, CF Whisperers Inc.
>>>> moron.
>>> Does that mean no?
>> no, it means you're a moron. moron.
>
> So I can take that as a "no"?
no, "moron", means you're a fucking moron, moron!!!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 11:34:34
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:3OudncZrx8pkuWjbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> Yes, I did. This is what you said:
>> "CF is not plastic like metal"
>>
>> Google it beamboy, you do the work.
>
> er, i /did/ read it you fucking moron, and your dumb ass thinks "plastic"
> means polymer!!! spectacular stupidity from a complete fucking moron that
> can't even look this shit up.
And so when you used "plastic" as if it means "polymer", you instead accuse
me of equating the two? When in fact you were the one who said "metal is
plastic"?
Priceless - I don't know of anyone else who is able to suffer the
embarassment of making this shit up.
>>> don't you understand the graph??? do you see the bit where plasticity
>>> is clearly labeled??? metal deforms plastically!!! absolute fucking
>>> moron.
>>
>> Er, but that's not what you claimed, was it beamboy? Yawn.
>
> er, what part of "metal deforms plastically" don't you understand?
So now you're saying instead of typing "CF is not plastic like metal", you
really meant to type "metal deforms plastically". Is that another typo,
beamboy? Because there's actually a Grand Canyon gap between the two
statements.
> you bullshit stupid stupid stupid fucking moron.
Oh, you seem to have a very limited profanity list. Use a dictionary and
let's see something new.
>>>> "CF is not plastic like metal"
>>> cfrp /doesn't/ deform plastically like metal, it's all elastic, moron.
>>
>> That's not the same as what you said, was it beamboy? Liar AND a
>> fucktard.
>
> learn what "plasticity" is you fucking moron. then you won't be so
> fucking moronic with the bullshit you try putting in other people's mouths
> and get it so spectacularly moronically wrong!!!
Well, again that's beside the point, beamboy, and dodging it doesn't work.
The point is that
"CF is not plastic like metal" >< "cfrp /doesn't/ deform plastically like
metal, it's all elastic,"
So me knowing what plasticity is, as I already do, does not help your
mistake.
>> Yeah, but see my post on that, beamboy. Lying fucktard.
>
> the one where you fuck it up yet again? that sure is convincingly fucking
> moronic!
Now shall we put you on time out again, beamboy? Concentrate...
>>>> Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, no matter how much
>>>> you try to spin it.
>>> that's your fuck-up moron, not mine.
>>
>> No, it's the scientific community and the laws of physics that state that
>> fact, not me. Your mistake, sorry.
>
> you're correct that modulus is not specific modulus - one is a derivative
> of the other.
One is not a derivative of the other, they're two different concepts
independent of each other. Geez, this is pretty taxing... a high school
education will have told you this.
>>>>>> Can you provide some advice? If I go to "materials skool", will I
>>>>>> also be able to hear CF talking or singing to me before they fail? I
>>>>>> want to start my own company, CF Whisperers Inc.
>>>>> moron.
>>>> Does that mean no?
>>> no, it means you're a moron. moron.
>>
>> So I can take that as a "no"?
>
> no, "moron", means you're a fucking moron, moron!!!
So is that a no or not?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 09:18:05
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:3OudncZrx8pkuWjbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> Yes, I did. This is what you said:
>>> "CF is not plastic like metal"
>>>
>>> Google it beamboy, you do the work.
>> er, i /did/ read it you fucking moron, and your dumb ass thinks "plastic"
>> means polymer!!! spectacular stupidity from a complete fucking moron that
>> can't even look this shit up.
>
> And so when you used "plastic" as if it means "polymer", you instead accuse
> me of equating the two? When in fact you were the one who said "metal is
> plastic"?
>
> Priceless - I don't know of anyone else who is able to suffer the
> embarassment of making this shit up.
wow!!! you /really/ need to take your meds, you fucking moron. you are
/seriously/ delusional.
>
>>>> don't you understand the graph??? do you see the bit where plasticity
>>>> is clearly labeled??? metal deforms plastically!!! absolute fucking
>>>> moron.
>>> Er, but that's not what you claimed, was it beamboy? Yawn.
>> er, what part of "metal deforms plastically" don't you understand?
>
> So now you're saying instead of typing "CF is not plastic like metal",
yes, cfrp does not deform plastically, only elastically.
> you
> really meant to type "metal deforms plastically".
but metal /does/ deform plastically!!!
> Is that another typo,
> beamboy? Because there's actually a Grand Canyon gap between the two
> statements.
it's no typo, you fucking moron. /you/ are the one that's having a
problem with it because /you/ are too fucking stupid to understand.
fucking moron.
>
>> you bullshit stupid stupid stupid fucking moron.
>
> Oh, you seem to have a very limited profanity list. Use a dictionary and
> let's see something new.
why? you're a moron. i'm being factually accurate. fucking moron.
>
>>>>> "CF is not plastic like metal"
>>>> cfrp /doesn't/ deform plastically like metal, it's all elastic, moron.
>>> That's not the same as what you said, was it beamboy? Liar AND a
>>> fucktard.
>> learn what "plasticity" is you fucking moron. then you won't be so
>> fucking moronic with the bullshit you try putting in other people's mouths
>> and get it so spectacularly moronically wrong!!!
>
> Well, again that's beside the point, beamboy, and dodging it doesn't work.
> The point is that
> "CF is not plastic like metal" >< "cfrp /doesn't/ deform plastically like
> metal, it's all elastic,"
>
> So me knowing what plasticity is, as I already do, does not help your
> mistake.
eh? my statement is not a mistake - it's 100% factual and accurate.
but /you/ don't understand that because /you/ don't understand what the
words "plastic" and "elastic" mean!!! despite it having been explained
about 20 times. absolute fucking moron.
>
>>> Yeah, but see my post on that, beamboy. Lying fucktard.
>> the one where you fuck it up yet again? that sure is convincingly fucking
>> moronic!
>
> Now shall we put you on time out again, beamboy? Concentrate...
>
>>>>> Specific modulus >< Young's modulus, no matter how much
>>>>> you try to spin it.
>>>> that's your fuck-up moron, not mine.
>>> No, it's the scientific community and the laws of physics that state that
>>> fact, not me. Your mistake, sorry.
>> you're correct that modulus is not specific modulus - one is a derivative
>> of the other.
>
> One is not a derivative of the other, they're two different concepts
> independent of each other. Geez, this is pretty taxing... a high school
> education will have told you this.
what??? you're a complete fucking moron!!! what you see one word being
used to define another, the latter is a derivative of the former!!!
what a fucking moron!!!
>
>>>>>>> Can you provide some advice? If I go to "materials skool", will I
>>>>>>> also be able to hear CF talking or singing to me before they fail? I
>>>>>>> want to start my own company, CF Whisperers Inc.
>>>>>> moron.
>>>>> Does that mean no?
>>>> no, it means you're a moron. moron.
>>> So I can take that as a "no"?
>> no, "moron", means you're a fucking moron, moron!!!
>
> So is that a no or not?
>
>
comprehension - zero. because you're a complete fucking moron!!!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:20:22
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:n-qdnaAKbYYjDGvbnZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> wow!!! you /really/ need to take your meds, you fucking moron. you are
> /seriously/ delusional.
Wow!! Run out of profanities?
>> So now you're saying instead of typing "CF is not plastic like metal",
>
> yes, cfrp does not deform plastically, only elastically.
>> you really meant to type "metal deforms plastically".
> but metal /does/ deform plastically!!!
Eh, you've just admitted that you did in fact do the outlined steps above.
Ergo, you did equate your two mutually exclusive statements together, but in
fact did so erroneously.
Thanks, beamboy, your concentration in this thread is lapsing really
badly....
>
>> Is that another typo, beamboy? Because there's actually a Grand Canyon
>> gap between the two statements.
>
> it's no typo, you fucking moron. /you/ are the one that's having a
> problem with it because /you/ are too fucking stupid to understand.
> fucking moron.
Yeah, it's a typo, beamboy. Just admit it and move on.
>>> you bullshit stupid stupid stupid fucking moron.
>>
>> Oh, you seem to have a very limited profanity list. Use a dictionary and
>> let's see something new.
>
> why? you're a moron. i'm being factually accurate. fucking moron.
Yeah, but it gets boring after a while. Show some creativity for the kids
out there.
>
> eh? my statement is not a mistake - it's 100% factual and accurate.
Eh, no it is not. "CF is not plastic like metal" makes absolutely no sense
whatsoever, in any level.
> but /you/ don't understand that because /you/ don't understand what the
> words "plastic" and "elastic" mean!!! despite it having been explained
> about 20 times. absolute fucking moron.
Sigh. I'll try it in simpler terms, beamboy: the issue is not the factual
definitions that you can Google, the issue is your mistake in saying "CF is
not plastic like metal". Just admit it and shut up.
>>>>>>>> Can you provide some advice? If I go to "materials skool", will I
>>>>>>>> also be able to hear CF talking or singing to me before they fail?
>>>>>>>> I want to start my own company, CF Whisperers Inc.
>>>>>>> moron.
>>>>>> Does that mean no?
>>>>> no, it means you're a moron. moron.
>>>> So I can take that as a "no"?
>>> no, "moron", means you're a fucking moron, moron!!!
>> So is that a no or not?
> comprehension - zero. because you're a complete fucking moron!!!
But is that a no then?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 15:44:08
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:20:22 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote:
>Eh, no it is not. "CF is not plastic like metal" makes absolutely no sense
>whatsoever, in any level.
That statement splits up into two simultaneous assertions:
"CF is not plastic" and "Metal is plastic".
Let's do some exegesis, shall we? "CF" and "Metal" appear to be well
understood by all, as are "is" and "is not", so what we're left with is
mainly trying to interpret the word "plastic". There are two primary
meanings for that word, and each of you appears to believe that the other
one doesn't exist.
In common, everyday usage, 'plastic' refers to a group of synthetic
materials that have the common attribute that they're cheap and can be
formed in convenient cheap ways -- plastic bags, plastic cups and plates,
plastic chairs and tables, etc. This appears to be the only interpretation
allowed by Jambo.
In materials science -- and a statement like the one above in the context
of a discussion about material strength &c probably should be interpreted
in this light -- "plastic" is an adjective to, among others,
'deformation', where it means that the deformation stays that way after
the external force is removed. It's also been nouned from that meaning to
indicate the group of materials which can be permanently deformed without
breaking. This last, I believe, is the variant which is intended.
But then, both of you know that damn well and you're juyst arguing for the
hell of it.
Jasper
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 14:36:41
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"Jasper Janssen" <jasper@jjanssen.org > wrote in message
news:e95if3h49mhvsa8kcv7ofhe88ln6bic9lj@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:20:22 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>
>>Eh, no it is not. "CF is not plastic like metal" makes absolutely no
>>sense
>>whatsoever, in any level.
>
> That statement splits up into two simultaneous assertions:
>
> "CF is not plastic" and "Metal is plastic".
No, it doesn't.
It's all about the construction of the sentence.
As beamboy himself admits in his other bleat, what he wanted to say is the
CF does not deform plastically as metal does.
That's all there is to it. Anyone can see that the above is not equivalent
to "CF is not plastic like metal".
Now if you insist on defending beamboy, you can try to prove his "sikorski"
story and his "metallurgist" background - he needs a lot of help there.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 20:16:31
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> "Jasper Janssen" <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote in message
> news:e95if3h49mhvsa8kcv7ofhe88ln6bic9lj@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:20:22 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:
>>
>>> Eh, no it is not. "CF is not plastic like metal" makes absolutely no
>>> sense
>>> whatsoever, in any level.
>> That statement splits up into two simultaneous assertions:
>>
>> "CF is not plastic" and "Metal is plastic".
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> It's all about the construction of the sentence.
>
> As beamboy himself admits in his other bleat, what he wanted to say is the
> CF does not deform plastically as metal does.
>
> That's all there is to it. Anyone can see that the above is not equivalent
> to "CF is not plastic like metal".
eh? that would be funny if it wasn't so pathetically incorrect. moron.
>
> Now if you insist on defending beamboy, you can try to prove his "sikorski"
> story and his "metallurgist" background - he needs a lot of help there.
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 10:37:26
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:n-qdnaAKbYYjDGvbnZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> wow!!! you /really/ need to take your meds, you fucking moron. you are
>> /seriously/ delusional.
>
> Wow!! Run out of profanities?
>
>>> So now you're saying instead of typing "CF is not plastic like metal",
>> yes, cfrp does not deform plastically, only elastically.
>>> you really meant to type "metal deforms plastically".
>> but metal /does/ deform plastically!!!
>
> Eh, you've just admitted that you did in fact do the outlined steps above.
> Ergo, you did equate your two mutually exclusive statements together, but in
> fact did so erroneously.
>
> Thanks, beamboy, your concentration in this thread is lapsing really
> badly....
you're fundamentally "confused" moron. translation, you're too fucking
MORONIC to understand what the fuck you're talking about.
>>> Is that another typo, beamboy? Because there's actually a Grand Canyon
>>> gap between the two statements.
>> it's no typo, you fucking moron. /you/ are the one that's having a
>> problem with it because /you/ are too fucking stupid to understand.
>> fucking moron.
>
> Yeah, it's a typo, beamboy. Just admit it and move on.
eh??? "Modulus is strength to weight" is a typo? no it's not, it's a
fundamental non-comprehension of grade school scientific principle.
that's means you're a fucking moron.
>
>>>> you bullshit stupid stupid stupid fucking moron.
>>> Oh, you seem to have a very limited profanity list. Use a dictionary and
>>> let's see something new.
>> why? you're a moron. i'm being factually accurate. fucking moron.
>
> Yeah, but it gets boring after a while. Show some creativity for the kids
> out there.
moron.
>
>> eh? my statement is not a mistake - it's 100% factual and accurate.
>
> Eh, no it is not. "CF is not plastic like metal" makes absolutely no sense
> whatsoever, in any level.
only to a moron that doesn't understand what "plastic" means!!! metal
deforms plastically. cfrp does not.
>
>> but /you/ don't understand that because /you/ don't understand what the
>> words "plastic" and "elastic" mean!!! despite it having been explained
>> about 20 times. absolute fucking moron.
>
> Sigh. I'll try it in simpler terms, beamboy: the issue is not the factual
> definitions that you can Google, the issue is your mistake in saying "CF is
> not plastic like metal". Just admit it and shut up.
but cfrp is not plastic like metal moron. the stress/strain graph is
straight line. the graph for metal [structural materials at any rate]
bends - and that is plasticity. moron.
>
>>>>>>>>> Can you provide some advice? If I go to "materials skool", will I
>>>>>>>>> also be able to hear CF talking or singing to me before they fail?
>>>>>>>>> I want to start my own company, CF Whisperers Inc.
>>>>>>>> moron.
>>>>>>> Does that mean no?
>>>>>> no, it means you're a moron. moron.
>>>>> So I can take that as a "no"?
>>>> no, "moron", means you're a fucking moron, moron!!!
>>> So is that a no or not?
>> comprehension - zero. because you're a complete fucking moron!!!
>
> But is that a no then?
moron!! it means you're a non-comprehending, dumb as two rocks,
complete fucking moron!!!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 16:04:11
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: carbon plane crashworthiness?
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:iLOdnTxePM_KOWvbnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> Eh, no it is not. "CF is not plastic like metal" makes absolutely no
>> sense whatsoever, in any level.
>
> only to a moron that doesn't understand what "plastic" means!!! metal
> deforms plastically. cfrp does not.
"CF is not plastic like metal" >< "metal deforms plastically. cfrp does
not."
Lying tard.
>> Sigh. I'll try it in simpler terms, beamboy: the issue is not the
>> factual definitions that you can Google, the issue is your mistake in
>> saying "CF is not plastic like metal". Just admit it and shut up.
>
> but cfrp is not plastic like metal moron.
There you go again... it's like an ADHD sufferer....
> the stress/strain graph is straight line. the graph for metal [structural
> materials at any rate] bends - and that is plasticity. moron.
Most metals have a linear section which is the elastic stress-strain
section - the non-linear section is the plastic section, you lying ignorant
tard.
Metals ARE ELASTIC below their yield limits, ignorant lying tard.
>>>>>>>>>> Can you provide some advice? If I go to "materials skool", will
>>>>>>>>>> I also be able to hear CF talking or singing to me before they
>>>>>>>>>> fail? I want to start my own company, CF Whisperers Inc.
>>>>>>>>> moron.
>>>>>>>> Does that mean no?
>>>>>>> no, it means you're a moron. moron.
>>>>>> So I can take that as a "no"?
>>>>> no, "moron", means you're a fucking moron, moron!!!
>>>> So is that a no or not?
>>> comprehension - zero. because you're a complete fucking moron!!!
>> But is that a no then?
> moron!! it means you're a non-comprehending, dumb as two rocks, complete
> fucking moron!!!
So that's a no then?
|
|
