|
On 18 Oct 2004 18:07:13 -0700, Jim Hampton wrote:
They [FCC] should stop being a mouthpiece for the current administration and power companies and get back to trying to make the airwaves a viable shared service for all. I said that ten years ago and got an invitation to retire early.... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Which proves the point: Titanic was not being operated properly for the conditions encountered. Other ships had stopped completely, or were proceeding at greatly reduced speed, because of the ice. The crew got paid...ergo, they were PROFESSIONALS!" So, Master Amateur Mariner, when are you lecturing at the Naval Academy on seamanship? One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination. Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test that with paying passangers aboard. Boeing doesn't test fly new aircraft with commercial paying passengers. |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On 18 Oct 2004 18:07:13 -0700, Jim Hampton wrote: They [FCC] should stop being a mouthpiece for the current administration and power companies and get back to trying to make the airwaves a viable shared service for all. I said that ten years ago and got an invitation to retire early.... Nothing wrong with retiring early. |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: Which proves the point: Titanic was not being operated properly for the conditions encountered. Other ships had stopped completely, or were proceeding at greatly reduced speed, because of the ice. The crew got paid...ergo, they were PROFESSIONALS!" So, Master Amateur Mariner, when are you lecturing at the Naval Academy on seamanship? One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow as well. Exactly! In fact, many ships (like Californian) simply stopped for the night. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination. Of course! Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test that with paying passangers aboard. Boeing doesn't test fly new aircraft with commercial paying passengers. Almost everyone then knew Titanic could sink (the term used was "virtually unsinkable"). What they could not conceive of was that she could sink so fast - less than 3 hours from hitting the berg to hitting the bottom of the ocean. That's why the rules did not specify "lifeboats for all" - they could not imagine a modern ship in the North Atlantic sinking so fast that no other ship would come to her rescue in time. Of course WW1 would show just how fast even modern ships could be made to sink. The comparison with new aircraft isn't as valid, though. Titanic wasn't a new type of ship - Olympic was the first of the class, and had been in service for months before Titanic's voyage. Both ships had undergone sea trials and the crew supposedly knew how to operate the ship safely. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 10/22/2004 5:54 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: So were the World Trade Center towers which were designed to survive if an airliner plowed into them. But the engineers who designed the towers didn't factor in the fact that airliners are not just structural impact loads, the carry fuel too. Oops. So their collapse was fundamentally an engineering screwup? Nor did the engineers ever conceptualize someone WANTING to fly into them in such a way as to cause thier demise. It's happened and it's fact, but I still can't imagine sitting in that cockpit and intentionally doing that... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
N2EY wrote:
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: The fundamental problem was that they were going too fast for the conditions. That's an operational mistake, not an engineering mistake. No, it was first and foremost an engineering screwup, if the rudder had been properly sized the ship would have turned harder/quicker at any speed and would have missed the iceberg. Particularly since the collision was only a sideswipe. *Maybe* Murdock had to reverse rudder so the stern wouldn't hit the berg too. Titanic was "state of the art" for its time. So were the World Trade Center towers which were designed to survive if an airliner plowed into them. But the engineers who designed the towers didn't factor in the fact that airliners are not just structural impact loads, the carry fuel too. Oops. So their collapse was fundamentally an engineering screwup? Other ships of that era with properly designed rudders would have turned away from the berg and missed it with room to spare. Perhaps if the rudder had been larger, the Titanic might have turned away quicker and missed the berg. But that's really irrelevant. The ship was clearly going too fast for conditions. There's no "might have beens" about it. Unless you can explain why a larger rudder wouldn't have turned the Titanic quicker so that it missed the berg. Simple. In a ship like Titanic, putting the rudder over isn't like steering the front wheels of a car. In landlubber terms . . . Save it for the landlubbers. massive snip You've snipped the part where I prove my points, of course. Hey kids! Trying to blame the loss of the Titanic on the rudder, while certainly an interesting point, is only one point. The rudder was what the rudder was. It functioned as well as it could, which was no well enough. That is a different matter. If I roll down the street in a loaded 18 wheeler at 100 plus miles per hour, and try to stop within 300 feet - it will not happen. The brakes are simply not up to the task. Does this mean that the brakes are poorly designed or defective? Not even. I was operating my 18 wheeler way outside it's design parameters. Did the pilot and Captain not know the handling characteristics of the ship? They should have. Frankly that BBC story smacked of the "Everything you think you know is wrong" sort of tale. The guy that was the hero is actually the coward, and the guy they called the coward was actually the hero, blah, blah, blah.... If the Titanic had not been simply scaled up from smaller designs, it probably would have been a better ship. If the metal was better, it would have probably not suffered the extent of damage, If the ships compartments not been *open at the top*, it wouldn't have had a cascading effect of water going over the top of one compartment, then starting to flood the next compartment, tilting the ship more, and exacerbating the problem until the water filled all the compartments and it sunk. Watertight doors at the bottom meant nothing when the water just went over the top. Odd that in all the arguments, that one is overlooked. I would postulate that the number one reason that the Titanic sunk at all is that the compartments had the open top design. Were they sealed, the Ship would probably just taken on a major list, and ridden low in the water. But almost all the people would have survived. By the way, ya want the list of ships I've been on during sinuous coursing anti-submarine drills at 30+ kts? Ever stand on the deck of a ship which is bigger the Titanic doing multiple banked s-turns turns at combat power speeds? There's some "rudder ops" which will get ya yer sea legs real quick . . . Big deal. Were you driving the things? Did they do the tests with a hull, rudder and propulsion system identical to Titanic's? Didn't think so. Sounds like fun as long as it is a drill! ;^) Titanic and sisters were primarily designed to be liners, not military ships. Sister Olympic not only evaded a torpedo attack in WW1, but chased down, rammed and sank the attacking submarine. Kinda says something about rudder size and manueverability... Now answer my question and thankew. Simple: Suppose you're driving a car in conditions where your range of vision is 200 feet. And suppose it takes that car 10 feet to stop for every 10 mph of speed. How fast do you drive the car under those conditions? If you go 50 mph and hit something, is that an engineering screwup? Or is it a simple case of going too fast for conditions? I say it's simply going too fast. Better brakes, better headlights, etc., might permit higher safe speeds, but if they're not in use, it's fundamentally the driver's responsibility to operate at a speed safe for the conditions encountered. HAR! I didn't read the whole letter before replying, and see that you used a similar example! The rudder was sufficient to maneuver the ship at a certain rate at a certain speed. Was the Titanic not very maneuverable? Possibly. Is an 18 wheeler as maneuverable as a 'Vette? Not hardly. But if the 18 wheeler tries to head down a winding mountain road at the same speeds the "Vette can, and it crashes, it isn't the designer's fault. - mike KB3EIA - |
"N2EY" wrote The fundamental problem was that they were going too fast for the conditions. That's an operational mistake, not an engineering mistake. I agree with Jim. A few years ago an AMATEUR sailor from landlocked Minnesota safely crossed the Atlantic in a 10-foot wooden boat. He obviously understood the seakeeping capabilities of his vessel and practiced good seamanship. The loss of the Titanic, crewed by PROFESSIONAL sailors, can be laid squarely at the feet at their obvious ignorance of the seakeeping capabilities of their vessel and poor seamanship. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: Trying to turn away, and in doing so exposing the side of the ship to the danger, was the final mistake. That action can be understood, however, because the decision to do it was made in haste. (Later analysis showed that had the First Officer simply reversed engines and hit the 'berg head-on, the ship would have stayed afloat and few if any lives would have been lost). BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Why are you laughing, Len? 1500 people died that night. Do you think that's funny? Riiiighhhtttt... Yes, it is: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/8912 http://www.cruiseserver.net/travelpa...ws_titanic.asp http://titanic.marconigraph.com/mgy_grounding.html Some time after the Titanic disaster, liner Niagara did indeed run headlong into an iceberg. She did not sink and all of her passengers survived (details in one of the references above). |
KØHB wrote:
"N2EY" wrote The fundamental problem was that they were going too fast for the conditions. That's an operational mistake, not an engineering mistake. I agree with Jim. A few years ago an AMATEUR sailor from landlocked Minnesota safely crossed the Atlantic in a 10-foot wooden boat. He obviously understood the seakeeping capabilities of his vessel and practiced good seamanship. The loss of the Titanic, crewed by PROFESSIONAL sailors, can be laid squarely at the feet at their obvious ignorance of the seakeeping capabilities of their vessel and poor seamanship. Now was this true, or was it just a story, a fictional tale, or a fable if you wish, obviously exaggerated, and only intended to illustrate a point. Oops sorry, cancel that last!!! 8^) Go ahead, kick me, I deserve it...... - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote Now was this true, or was it just a story, a fictional tale, or a fable if you wish, obviously exaggerated, and only intended to illustrate a point. The amateur sailors name is Gerry Spiess. Hails from near me, White Bear Lake, Minnesota, and in 1979 sailed his 10-foot boat homebrewed (out of used plywood) sailboat, "Yankee Girl" from Norfolk, Virginia to Falmouth, England. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: The fundamental problem was that they were going too fast for the conditions. That's an operational mistake, not an engineering mistake. No, it was first and foremost an engineering screwup, if the rudder had been properly sized the ship would have turned harder/quicker at any speed and would have missed the iceberg. Particularly since the collision was only a sideswipe. *Maybe* Murdock had to reverse rudder so the stern wouldn't hit the berg too. Titanic was "state of the art" for its time. So were the World Trade Center towers which were designed to survive if an airliner plowed into them. But the engineers who designed the towers didn't factor in the fact that airliners are not just structural impact loads, the carry fuel too. Oops. So their collapse was fundamentally an engineering screwup? Other ships of that era with properly designed rudders would have turned away from the berg and missed it with room to spare. Perhaps if the rudder had been larger, the Titanic might have turned away quicker and missed the berg. But that's really irrelevant. The ship was clearly going too fast for conditions. There's no "might have beens" about it. Unless you can explain why a larger rudder wouldn't have turned the Titanic quicker so that it missed the berg. Simple. In a ship like Titanic, putting the rudder over isn't like steering the front wheels of a car. In landlubber terms . . . Save it for the landlubbers. massive snip You've snipped the part where I prove my points, of course. Hey kids! Trying to blame the loss of the Titanic on the rudder, while certainly an interesting point, is only one point. The rudder was what the rudder was. It functioned as well as it could, which was no well enough. That is a different matter. Yep. If I roll down the street in a loaded 18 wheeler at 100 plus miles per hour, and try to stop within 300 feet - it will not happen. The brakes are simply not up to the task. Does this mean that the brakes are poorly designed or defective? Not even. I was operating my 18 wheeler way outside it's design parameters. Which does not mean there's anything wrong with your 18 wheeler, either, except for the loose nut holding the steering wheel....;-). Did the pilot and Captain not know the handling characteristics of the ship? They should have. There was no pilot. Most of the officers were transferred as a unit from Olympic, which was Titanic's older and slightly shorter sister. Captain Smith was Olympic's captain before Titanic, and was certainly familiar with her characteristics. He was routinely assigned to the newest White Star ships to essentially "write the book" on them. In fact, Smith was the senior captain of the whole White Star line, and was supposed to retire before April 1912. He was persuaded by Ismay to do just one more round trip, closing out his career with the first voyage of Titanic. Frankly that BBC story smacked of the "Everything you think you know is wrong" sort of tale. The guy that was the hero is actually the coward, and the guy they called the coward was actually the hero, blah, blah, blah.... Some new data has come to light since the wreck was found. For example, it was not known with certainty before that the ship broke in two. The brittleness of the steel, particularly the rivets, was documented from actual samples. If the Titanic had not been simply scaled up from smaller designs, it probably would have been a better ship. OTOH, tried-and-proven methods are not abandoned lightly. If the metal was better, it would have probably not suffered the extent of damage, If the ships compartments not been *open at the top*, it wouldn't have had a cascading effect of water going over the top of one compartment, then starting to flood the next compartment, tilting the ship more, and exacerbating the problem until the water filled all the compartments and it sunk. Watertight doors at the bottom meant nothing when the water just went over the top. Yep. Odd that in all the arguments, that one is overlooked. No, it isn't. See below. I would postulate that the number one reason that the Titanic sunk at all is that the compartments had the open top design. Were they sealed, the Ship would probably just taken on a major list, and ridden low in the water. But almost all the people would have survived. A "sealed top" design would be impractical - and completely unnecessary. It was known soon after the disaster that if the watertight bulkheads (transverse walls between compartments) were just *one deck* higher, the overflow would not have occurred. But the bulkheads did not go one deck higher. By the way, ya want the list of ships I've been on during sinuous coursing anti-submarine drills at 30+ kts? Ever stand on the deck of a ship which is bigger the Titanic doing multiple banked s-turns turns at combat power speeds? There's some "rudder ops" which will get ya yer sea legs real quick . . . Big deal. Were you driving the things? Did they do the tests with a hull, rudder and propulsion system identical to Titanic's? Didn't think so. Sounds like fun as long as it is a drill! ;^) Sure! Titanic and sisters were primarily designed to be liners, not military ships. Sister Olympic not only evaded a torpedo attack in WW1, but chased down, rammed and sank the attacking submarine. Kinda says something about rudder size and manueverability... Now answer my question and thankew. Simple: Suppose you're driving a car in conditions where your range of vision is 200 feet. And suppose it takes that car 10 feet to stop for every 10 mph of speed. How fast do you drive the car under those conditions? If you go 50 mph and hit something, is that an engineering screwup? Or is it a simple case of going too fast for conditions? I say it's simply going too fast. Better brakes, better headlights, etc., might permit higher safe speeds, but if they're not in use, it's fundamentally the driver's responsibility to operate at a speed safe for the conditions encountered. HAR! I didn't read the whole letter before replying, and see that you used a similar example! It's exactly the same principle is why. They were outdriving their vision, which is suicide in any mode of transport that depends on seeing what's ahead. The rudder was sufficient to maneuver the ship at a certain rate at a certain speed. Was the Titanic not very maneuverable? Possibly. Is an 18 wheeler as maneuverable as a 'Vette? Not hardly. But if the 18 wheeler tries to head down a winding mountain road at the same speeds the "Vette can, and it crashes, it isn't the designer's fault. Exactly! The designer was aboard Titanic, and went down with her. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend the book and film "A Night To Remember". 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: Odd that in all the arguments, that one is overlooked. I would postulate that the number one reason that the Titanic sunk at all is that the compartments had the open top design. Were they sealed, the Ship would probably just taken on a major list, and ridden low in the water. But almost all the people would have survived. Boink! Good show Mike! Another engineering screwup. - mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
KØHB wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote Now was this true, or was it just a story, a fictional tale, or a fable if you wish, obviously exaggerated, and only intended to illustrate a point. The amateur sailors name is Gerry Spiess. Hails from near me, White Bear Lake, Minnesota, and in 1979 sailed his 10-foot boat homebrewed (out of used plywood) sailboat, "Yankee Girl" from Norfolk, Virginia to Falmouth, England. Talk about brass cojones! - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
In article , Robert Casey
writes: One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination. Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test that with paying passangers aboard. Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light- years) to amateur radio policy. :-) Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and preferences...and to have them damn all others for not thinking and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded] For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished on the Titanic in 1912. Nope. I'll just reflect that the subject made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband and employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"... many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great tears on-stage on that Oscar Night. Boeing doesn't test fly new aircraft with commercial paying passengers. Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-) Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and their chief test pilot) on takeoff. Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date. They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating below 30 MHz...in the ham bands. It seems that some amateurs bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in the year 2004. Very "progressive." State of the Art. |
"Brian Kelly" wrote Some of them claim that the architects screwed up when they failed to factor in the prospect of fuel explosions in addition to the aircraft impact loads. Apparently analyses are showing that if one or another of the tower's steel stucture had been properly insulated it might have not come down. There's a congressionally-mandated technical report in the works which gets into the topic in depth which should be released soon and is reported to pass out some spankings. Typical 'government out of control' bull****. Instead of blaming the radical towel-heads who creamed the towers, lets spank the engineers who designed it several decades earlier when the idea of driving jet airliners into office buildings was unthinkable. "Congressionally-mandated" is just another term for politicians pushing the right buttons to get a few more seconds of visibility on the evening news and having some impressive paperwork to wave at their constituents on the campaign trail. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Brian Kelly wrote: (N2EY) wrote in message om... Mike Coslo wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: Titanic was "state of the art" for its time. So were the World Trade Center towers which were designed to survive if an airliner plowed into them. But the engineers who designed the towers didn't factor in the fact that airliners are not just structural impact loads, the carry fuel too. Oops. So their collapse was fundamentally an engineering screwup? Comes up as a major screwup to me. We'll see how the pros call it. Some of them claim that the architects screwed up when they failed to factor in the prospect of fuel explosions in addition to the aircraft impact loads. Apparently analyses are showing that if one or another of the tower's steel stucture had been properly insulated it might have not come down. There's a congressionally-mandated technical report in the works which gets into the topic in depth which should be released soon and is reported to pass out some spankings. I was at a presentation made by the head of the engineering team that investigated the Twin towers disaster. He said that too many people aproached it from the wrong angle They ask why did the towers fall so quickly. A better question would have been how did they stay up so long. Engineers so often get tarred and feathered when this sort of thing happens. What we really need is for engineers to accomodate ALL possible scenarios, both KNOWN and UNKNOWN. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote The fundamental problem was that they were going too fast for the conditions. That's an operational mistake, not an engineering mistake. I agree with Jim. Thanks, Hans. A few years ago an AMATEUR sailor from landlocked Minnesota safely crossed the Atlantic in a 10-foot wooden boat. He obviously understood the seakeeping capabilities of his vessel and practiced good seamanship. Gerry Spiess, a schoolteacher. The 3800 mile trip took 54 days in 1979. Interesting list of similar trips (look behind the first window that opens): http://www.famoussmallboats.com/locm...tfreebies.html Spiess wrote a book about his trip - "Alone Against The Atlantic" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...-9316516-62481 41?v=glance I've gotta check the Radnor library. If they don't have it, a donation may be in order.... But that's not the end of the story. In 1981, Gerry Spiess took "Yankee Girl" to the Pacific, and successfully sailed from California to Australia. How did he fit enough supplies for such a voyage in such a small boat? Doesn't seem to be enough room, but he did it. How big was his boat? Judge for yourself: http://www.famoussmallboats.com/Graphics/speiss1c.jpg Built of recycled plywood.... The loss of the Titanic, crewed by PROFESSIONAL sailors, can be laid squarely at the feet at their obvious ignorance of the seakeeping capabilities of their vessel and poor seamanship. My point exactly. The chain of events is full of apparently "little" mistakes, any one of which would have changed the outcome completely. It's made even worse by the fact that they were among the most experienced available, and many of them (including the captain) had experience with Titanic's sister ship, Olympic. So it wasn't even a matter of a new class of ship whose characteristics aren't fully known yet. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article . net, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote But that's not the end of the story. In 1981, Gerry Spiess took "Yankee Girl" to the Pacific, and successfully sailed from California to Australia. How did he fit enough supplies for such a voyage in such a small boat? Doesn't seem to be enough room, but he did it. How big was his boat? Judge for yourself: http://www.famoussmallboats.com/Graphics/speiss1c.jpg Built of recycled plywood.... Uh oh. He's liable to get a "kluge letter" from California. ;-) Dave K8MN |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote: (N2EY) wrote in message om... Mike Coslo wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: Titanic was "state of the art" for its time. So were the World Trade Center towers which were designed to survive if an airliner plowed into them. But the engineers who designed the towers didn't factor in the fact that airliners are not just structural impact loads, the carry fuel too. Oops. So their collapse was fundamentally an engineering screwup? Comes up as a major screwup to me. We'll see how the pros call it. Some of them claim that the architects screwed up when they failed to factor in the prospect of fuel explosions in addition to the aircraft impact loads. Apparently analyses are showing that if one or another of the tower's steel stucture had been properly insulated it might have not come down. There's a congressionally-mandated technical report in the works which gets into the topic in depth which should be released soon and is reported to pass out some spankings. I was at a presentation made by the head of the engineering team that investigated the Twin towers disaster. "The" engineering firm?? Do you have any idea just how *many* engineering firms have been involved in the WTC disaster?? He said that too many people aproached it from the wrong angle They ask why did the towers fall so quickly. A better question would have been how did they stay up so long. Engineers so often get tarred and feathered when this sort of thing happens. Been that way since the first well-known engineers built the pyramids, comes with the turf. What we really need is for engineers to accomodate ALL possible scenarios, both KNOWN and UNKNOWN. 8^) Not our yob, that's the kind of crap the physicists get paid to mess with. - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
"Brian Kelly" wrote
A big airliner is a big airliner, they all tote/toted tons of JP4/5 then and now, doesn't matter if it's being flown by an AAL 767 piloted by a 15,000 hr. column jock or a hijacked 767 piloted by a sand roach. They all burn equally well inside hi-rise buildings. If the building comes down because it's core structure wasn't sufficiently heat-resistant then in fairness who really did screw the moose? "Over to you Hans". You're right, Brian. It wasn't the fault of the religious freedom fighters that the WTC towers are rubble. It's the fault of the designers. What the hell was I thinking! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
Brian Kelly wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... Brian Kelly wrote: (N2EY) wrote in message om... Mike Coslo wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: Titanic was "state of the art" for its time. So were the World Trade Center towers which were designed to survive if an airliner plowed into them. But the engineers who designed the towers didn't factor in the fact that airliners are not just structural impact loads, the carry fuel too. Oops. So their collapse was fundamentally an engineering screwup? Comes up as a major screwup to me. We'll see how the pros call it. Some of them claim that the architects screwed up when they failed to factor in the prospect of fuel explosions in addition to the aircraft impact loads. Apparently analyses are showing that if one or another of the tower's steel stucture had been properly insulated it might have not come down. There's a congressionally-mandated technical report in the works which gets into the topic in depth which should be released soon and is reported to pass out some spankings. I was at a presentation made by the head of the engineering team that investigated the Twin towers disaster. ^^^^ "The" engineering firm?? Do you have any idea just how *many* engineering firms have been involved in the WTC disaster?? Um, I said TEAM Brian. I didn't say FIRM! I ain't lying. I still have his presentation, I will get his name for you. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Brian Kelly" wrote A big airliner is a big airliner, they all tote/toted tons of JP4/5 then and now, doesn't matter if it's being flown by an AAL 767 piloted by a 15,000 hr. column jock or a hijacked 767 piloted by a sand roach. They all burn equally well inside hi-rise buildings. If the building comes down because it's core structure wasn't sufficiently heat-resistant then in fairness who really did screw the moose? "Over to you Hans". You're right, Brian. It wasn't the fault of the religious freedom fighters that the WTC towers are rubble. It's the fault of the designers. What the hell was I thinking! Oh stop it Hans. The comments I made are completely apolitical and involved only a small band of purely technical issues. Specifically there appears to be a strong possibility that many lives might have been saved if the designers of the towers hadn't failed to take into account the damage burning A/C fuel would do to the survivability of the towers. Has absolutely nothing to do with who flew what into the towers for whatever reasons or reasons. It's about a design model of a collison between a A/C and the towers and nothing more. But then again this is, after all, RRAP. 73, de Hans, K0HB w3rv |
|
N2EY wrote:
In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , Robert Casey writes: One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination. Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test that with paying passangers aboard. Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light- years) to amateur radio policy. :-) So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur radio policy either. That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly amusing. When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing. Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and preferences..and to have them damn all others for not thinking and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded] That's a pretty good summation of what *you* want from this newsgroup, Len. After all, you're the one telling other people to "shut the hell up".. I've thought that Lenover21 wanted to be the moderator in here. He claims otherwise. For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished on the Titanic in 1912. Nope. "Bleeding-heart imaginary sailors"? Who would that be? Yeah, what's with that? I'll just reflect that the subject made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband You mean James Cameron? If so, why not just use his name? You seem to have a serious problem calling people by their names. Perhaps you don't have the guts to do it. and employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"... many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great tears on-stage on that Oscar Night. What possible significance does that have? And is that on topic for rrap? ;^) Linda is quite quirky in a cute sort of way... or is that quite cute in a quirky sort of way? Boeing doesn't test fly new aircraft with commercial paying passengers. Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-) Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and their chief test pilot) on takeoff. Of course there was the PROFESSIONAL pilot who tried to roll a B-52 at low altitude. Did you see the case study of that one, Jim? Spooky! Too bad so many of the folk flying with him knew they were probably going to die some day with him at the yoke. Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date. Yes, they are. Seems like it to me! They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating below 30 MHz...in the ham bands. Why does that bother you so much? It seems that some amateurs bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in the year 2004. Perhaps some do. Many more think that a simple test of Morse code skill at a very basic level is a worthwhile requirement for an amateur license. Why does that bother you so much, Len? Very "progressive." State of the Art. Len, do you live in a "State Of The Art" house? Drive a "State Of The Art" car? Wear "State Of The Art" clothes? Is your computer "State Of The Art", complete with broadband connection? If we owns PC's, we isn't state of the art. Heck, the only HF radio equipment you've admitted to owning is over 20 years old. Definitely not "State Of The Art", yet you lecture others about it. Random though mode on: I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital (excluding the necessary analog bits) Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat. "Why", the Grinch said as a smile lit his face, "Maybe for everything, everymode all has it's place." I have a chunk of galena setting on the shelf in front of me - maybe I'll make a cat's whisker detector and radio from it Random thought mode off....... ttfn! - mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , Robert Casey writes: One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination. Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test that with paying passangers aboard. Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light- years) to amateur radio policy. :-) So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur radio policy either. That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly amusing. When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing. Try a quartet. :-) I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-) YOU are the one making that charge. I just call them as everyone else can see them. Or, as someone else wrote, "the replies just seem to write themselves!" Heh heh heh. Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and preferences..and to have them damn all others for not thinking and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded] That's a pretty good summation of what *you* want from this newsgroup, Len. After all, you're the one telling other people to "shut the hell up".. I've thought that Lenover21 wanted to be the moderator in here. He claims otherwise. Tsk. Nice troll cast, but inaccurate. Now YOU tell us what the Titanic's sinking of 92 years ago has to do with amateur radio policy of today? 1912 was the year of the first U.S. radio regulating agency. That's about the only "relation" to the subject of the Titanic and a very tenuous one...if at all. :-) For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished on the Titanic in 1912. Nope. "Bleeding-heart imaginary sailors"? Who would that be? Yeah, what's with that? Tsk. You two don't really READ what you've written? :-) Jimmie wanted me to show ten kinds of respect and sorrow for all the passengers and crew of the Titanic who perished in 1912! I'll just reflect that the subject made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband You mean James Cameron? If so, why not just use his name? You seem to have a serious problem calling people by their names. Perhaps you don't have the guts to do it. Tsk. "Serious problem?" More tsk. :-) Not much show-biz action in PA...but there is in this neck o' the woods. and employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"... many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great tears on-stage on that Oscar Night. What possible significance does that have? And is that on topic for rrap? ;^) Tsk. More PCTA extra Double Standard. Linda is quite quirky in a cute sort of way... or is that quite cute in a quirky sort of way? Why do you wish to continue talking about Linda Hamilton? Does she have a ham license? [pun intended] [just think what fun the ARRL news page would have with...drum roll...HAM ACTOR! :-) Boeing doesn't test fly new aircraft with commercial paying passengers. Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-) How did Bill Boeing's company get into ham radio policy? You guys just can't focus! :-) Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and their chief test pilot) on takeoff. Of course there was the PROFESSIONAL pilot who tried to roll a B-52 at low altitude. Did you see the case study of that one, Jim? Spooky! Too bad so many of the folk flying with him knew they were probably going to die some day with him at the yoke. So...this is now a FLYING newsgroup? Or are you PCTAs just "high?" Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date. Yes, they are. Seems like it to me! For maybe, 1913... :-) They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating below 30 MHz...in the ham bands. Why does that bother you so much? Tsk. Doesn't bother me much. I haven't gotten an amateur radio license yet. :-) Why should I sell my soul for some high-rate morsemanship? :-) It seems that some amateurs bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in the year 2004. Perhaps some do. Jimmie Who do. Many more think that a simple test of Morse code skill at a very basic level is a worthwhile requirement for an amateur license. Only because THEY had to do it...therefore everyone else has to do the same! :-) Why does that bother you so much, Len? Why is Jimmie so bothered that he has to keep asking that? Very "progressive." State of the Art. Len, do you live in a "State Of The Art" house? Drive a "State Of The Art" car? Wear "State Of The Art" clothes? Is your computer "State Of The Art", complete with broadband connection? Far more modern in all respects on all items compared to 1912. :-) If we owns PC's, we isn't state of the art. Tsk. Bad grammar to boot...up. Try "If we own PCs, we are not state of the art." :-) Your English syntax and grammar is NOT state of the art... Heck, the only HF radio equipment you've admitted to owning is over 20 years old. Definitely not "State Of The Art", yet you lecture others about it. Tsk. Jimmie have loss of memory. Poor fella. Has to "recycle" all his radio construction in order to do "state of the art" TUBE designs in the 1990s. Tsk. With a double degree... :-) Random though mode on: I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital (excluding the necessary analog bits) Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat. "Why", the Grinch said as a smile lit his face, "Maybe for everything, everymode all has it's place." I have a chunk of galena setting on the shelf in front of me - maybe I'll make a cat's whisker detector and radio from it Random thought mode off....... Put a carbon mike in your antenna lead and you can do AM like Reggie F. in his Big Broadcast of 1906! :-) Wow! "State of the Art!" Amaze your friends and neighbors by being able to talk without wires for at least 10 miles! :-) Have a Happy, your Grinchness... |
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: "KØHB" Date: 10/24/2004 9:58 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: . net "Brian Kelly" wrote A big airliner is a big airliner, they all tote/toted tons of JP4/5 then and now, doesn't matter if it's being flown by an AAL 767 piloted by a 15,000 hr. column jock or a hijacked 767 piloted by a sand roach. They all burn equally well inside hi-rise buildings. If the building comes down because it's core structure wasn't sufficiently heat-resistant then in fairness who really did screw the moose? "Over to you Hans". You're right, Brian. It wasn't the fault of the religious freedom fighters that the WTC towers are rubble. It's the fault of the designers. What the hell was I thinking! Brian, we gotta go with Hans on this! One has to assume that a professional pilot would have, realising his error, made every effort to avoid the Towers. The camel fornicators jammed on the power and aimed straight for the buildings...That's a heck of a lot more kinetic energy than a glancing blow or just clipping it with a wing (a loss of the aircraft, to be sure, but a lot less likely to have caused the Towers to fall...) 73 Steve, K4YZ |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , Robert Casey writes: One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination. Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test that with paying passangers aboard. Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light- years) to amateur radio policy. :-) So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur radio policy either. That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly amusing. Agreed! Len does more OT posting than anybody, yet complains the loudest when others do it. Just another example of his double standard, do as Len says not as Len does mentality. When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing. Agreed! The denials are almost funny. Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and preferences..and to have them damn all others for not thinking and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded] That's a pretty good summation of what *you* want from this newsgroup, Len. After all, you're the one telling other people to "shut the hell up".. I've thought that Lenover21 wanted to be the moderator in here. He claims otherwise. It's how he acts that makes the claims ring hollow. Perhaps it's time to repost the "feldwebel" classic... For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished on the Titanic in 1912. Nope. "Bleeding-heart imaginary sailors"? Who would that be? Yeah, what's with that? Len's trying to cover up his gaffe of laughing at them. I'll just reflect that the subject made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband You mean James Cameron? If so, why not just use his name? You seem to have a serious problem calling people by their names. Perhaps you don't have the guts to do it. Have you ever noticed, Mike, that Len practically *never* addresses someone who disagrees with him by the name they use on their posts? He almost always has to make up an insulting nickname for them. and employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"... many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great tears on-stage on that Oscar Night. What possible significance does that have? And is that on topic for rrap? ;^) ;-) ;-) Linda is quite quirky in a cute sort of way... or is that quite cute in a quirky sort of way? Very attractive, really. Not at the Jan Smithers level, of course. Boeing doesn't test fly new aircraft with commercial paying passengers. OT? Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-) Very OT Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and their chief test pilot) on takeoff. Yawningly OT Of course there was the PROFESSIONAL pilot who tried to roll a B-52 at low altitude. Did you see the case study of that one, Jim? Spooky! Too bad so many of the folk flying with him knew they were probably going to die some day with him at the yoke. Did you see the film clip? It's on the 'net at a few sites. Not the best quality, but scary enough. Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date. Yes, they are. Seems like it to me! They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating below 30 MHz...in the ham bands. Why does that bother you so much? Notice how Len avoids the relevant questions... It seems that some amateurs bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in the year 2004. Perhaps some do. Many more think that a simple test of Morse code skill at a very basic level is a worthwhile requirement for an amateur license. Why does that bother you so much, Len? Very "progressive." State of the Art. Len, do you live in a "State Of The Art" house? Drive a "State Of The Art" car? Wear "State Of The Art" clothes? Is your computer "State Of The Art", complete with broadband connection? If we owns PC's, we isn't state of the art. Roger that! Heck, the only HF radio equipment you've admitted to owning is over 20 years old. Definitely not "State Of The Art", yet you lecture others about it. Random though mode on: I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital (excluding the necessary analog bits) Mostly analog, really! Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat. Yep. "Why", the Grinch said as a smile lit his face, "Maybe for everything, everymode all has it's place." Indeed. I have a chunk of galena setting on the shelf in front of me - maybe I'll make a cat's whisker detector and radio from it Oatmeal boxes made of cardboard are still used. They have a plastic rim at the top but they still make good coil forms Random thought mode off....... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS.... From: "KØHB" Date: 10/24/2004 9:58 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: . net "Brian Kelly" wrote A big airliner is a big airliner, they all tote/toted tons of JP4/5 then and now, doesn't matter if it's being flown by an AAL 767 piloted by a 15,000 hr. column jock or a hijacked 767 piloted by a sand roach. They all burn equally well inside hi-rise buildings. If the building comes down because it's core structure wasn't sufficiently heat-resistant then in fairness who really did screw the moose? "Over to you Hans". You're right, Brian. It wasn't the fault of the religious freedom fighters that the WTC towers are rubble. It's the fault of the designers. What the hell was I thinking! Brian, we gotta go with Hans on this! One has to assume that a professional pilot would have, realising his error, made every effort to avoid the Towers. The camel fornicators jammed on the power and aimed straight for the buildings...That's a heck of a lot more kinetic energy than a glancing blow or just clipping it with a wing (a loss of the aircraft, to be sure, but a lot less likely to have caused the Towers to fall...) There are three major airports within a few miles from lower Manhattan, Newark, JFK and Laguardia. Most aircraft accidents occur during landings and takeoffs and include both pilot error and equipment failures and sometimes both. With the balls to the wall looking for altitude. The guy who hit the Empire State Building was executing extreme evasive maneuvers with a high-performance military A/C which was far more agile than any jet airliner but he hit it anyway and almost dead center at that. As you well know there have been situations in which airliners have become completely uncontrollable, e.g., 737 rudder lockups. You're a pilot too, connect the dots. The issue "under discussion" here is whether one of the towers might not have come down if it's designers had used their heads when they picked a wayward 707 as the model for a A/C collision with a tower and factored in the fact that 707's carry huge amounts of JP. Which they apparently didn't do. That's *all* there is to my "agenda". But as usual around here the "technical experts" . . yadda, yadda . . . 73 Steve, K4YZ w3rv |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , Robert Casey writes: One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination. Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test that with paying passangers aboard. Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light- years) to amateur radio policy. :-) So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur radio policy either. That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly amusing. When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing. Try a quartet. :-) I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-) YOU are the one making that charge. Charge is such a nasty legalese sounding term. It's more like "observation". And yes, I do make that observation. I just call them as everyone else can see them. Wouldn't it be better to shed light on what others may not be able to see? Or, as someone else wrote, "the replies just seem to write themselves!" Heh heh heh. Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and preferences..and to have them damn all others for not thinking and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded] That's a pretty good summation of what *you* want from this newsgroup, Len. After all, you're the one telling other people to "shut the hell up".. I've thought that Lenover21 wanted to be the moderator in here. He claims otherwise. Tsk. Nice troll cast, but inaccurate. Now YOU tell us what the Titanic's sinking of 92 years ago has to do with amateur radio policy of today? Very very little. 1912 was the year of the first U.S. radio regulating agency. That's about the only "relation" to the subject of the Titanic and a very tenuous one...if at all. :-) For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished on the Titanic in 1912. Nope. "Bleeding-heart imaginary sailors"? Who would that be? Yeah, what's with that? Tsk. You two don't really READ what you've written? :-) Jimmie wanted me to show ten kinds of respect and sorrow for all the passengers and crew of the Titanic who perished in 1912! When one would have been sufficient. Respect doesn't make a person a "bleeding heart". I'll just reflect that the subject made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband You mean James Cameron? If so, why not just use his name? You seem to have a serious problem calling people by their names. Perhaps you don't have the guts to do it. Tsk. "Serious problem?" More tsk. :-) Not much show-biz action in PA...but there is in this neck o' the woods. and employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"... many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great tears on-stage on that Oscar Night. What possible significance does that have? And is that on topic for rrap? ;^) Tsk. More PCTA extra Double Standard. Linda is quite quirky in a cute sort of way... or is that quite cute in a quirky sort of way? Why do you wish to continue talking about Linda Hamilton? Well you brought her to the conversation. 8^) Does she have a ham license? [pun intended] [just think what fun the ARRL news page would have with...drum roll...HAM ACTOR! :-) Boeing doesn't test fly new aircraft with commercial paying passengers. Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-) How did Bill Boeing's company get into ham radio policy? You guys just can't focus! :-) Not a matter of focus. Just some discussion among friends. And the discussions among friends tend to go where they will. Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and their chief test pilot) on takeoff. Of course there was the PROFESSIONAL pilot who tried to roll a B-52 at low altitude. Did you see the case study of that one, Jim? Spooky! Too bad so many of the folk flying with him knew they were probably going to die some day with him at the yoke. So...this is now a FLYING newsgroup? No, but there are some on Netnews, I'm sure. Or are you PCTAs just "high?" Ick, getting high is a sure fire method of wasting one's life. Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date. Yes, they are. Seems like it to me! For maybe, 1913... :-) I took the tests recently, all within the past 5 years, and a couple within 3 years. They are up to date enough, covering satellite ops, all manner of relevant band and technical questions dealing with present day equipment. They are up to date for at least mid 2001. They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating below 30 MHz...in the ham bands. Why does that bother you so much? Tsk. Doesn't bother me much. I haven't gotten an amateur radio license yet. :-) Why should I sell my soul for some high-rate morsemanship? :-) Ahh, maybe there is the problem. You don't have to sell your soul, just study the material. I had great difficulty with Element 1 preparation, but it didn't do me a bit of damage. Here I am, soul intact , and just as fat dumb and happy as ever! 8^) It seems that some amateurs bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in the year 2004. Perhaps some do. Jimmie Who do. Jimmie do the voodoo that who do? 8^) Many more think that a simple test of Morse code skill at a very basic level is a worthwhile requirement for an amateur license. Only because THEY had to do it...therefore everyone else has to do the same! :-) Nahh, I think they should take it because that is the rule at present. Why does that bother you so much, Len? Why is Jimmie so bothered that he has to keep asking that? Oh, Bother..... W.T. Pooh Very "progressive." State of the Art. Len, do you live in a "State Of The Art" house? Drive a "State Of The Art" car? Wear "State Of The Art" clothes? Is your computer "State Of The Art", complete with broadband connection? Far more modern in all respects on all items compared to 1912. :-) If we owns PC's, we isn't state of the art. Tsk. Bad grammar to boot...up. Yup, kind of illustrating the point that many people seem to think that they are some kind of high tech wizard because they own a PC or cell phone, or other such icons. Try "If we own PCs, we are not state of the art." :-) Thanks for the suggestion, but I kind of like the other way if you don't mind. 8^) Your English syntax and grammar is NOT state of the art... Oh, but they are as necessary! Heck, the only HF radio equipment you've admitted to owning is over 20 years old. Definitely not "State Of The Art", yet you lecture others about it. Tsk. Jimmie have loss of memory. Poor fella. Has to "recycle" all his radio construction in order to do "state of the art" TUBE designs in the 1990s. Tsk. With a double degree... :-) Despite their virtual obsolescence, hollow state technology is quite interesting, at least to me. Random though mode on: I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital (excluding the necessary analog bits) Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat. "Why", the Grinch said as a smile lit his face, "Maybe for everything, everymode all has it's place." I have a chunk of galena setting on the shelf in front of me - maybe I'll make a cat's whisker detector and radio from it Random thought mode off....... Put a carbon mike in your antenna lead and you can do AM like Reggie F. in his Big Broadcast of 1906! :-) AM never really appealed to me. Takes a lot of energy for all you get out of it. But I do like historical processes and equipment as a diversion after working all day with much more modern techniques. Kinda fun. Wow! "State of the Art!" I suppose at one time it was! Amaze your friends and neighbors by being able to talk without wires for at least 10 miles! :-) Hehe, AM is probably just about at the bottom of the heap (with apologies to all the AM'ers out there) Have a Happy, your Grinchness... You also, Lenover21. I do have a question. I had called you Lennie once, and I think you didn't particularly care for that. I've been calling you Lenover21, but that sounds kind of formal if a screen name can be called formal. Do you have a preference? Does simply "Len" work? Or "Leonard"? - Mike KB3EIA - |
impact loads. Apparently analyses are showing that if one or another
of the tower's steel stucture had been properly insulated it might have not come down. There's a congressionally-mandated technical report in the works which gets into the topic in depth which should be released soon and is reported to pass out some spankings. I was at a presentation made by the head of the engineering team that investigated the Twin towers disaster. ^^^^ "The" engineering firm?? Do you have any idea just how *many* engineering firms have been involved in the WTC disaster?? Um, I said TEAM Brian. I didn't say FIRM! QSL. I ain't lying. I still have his presentation, I will get his name for you. Good, I'll take it if you find it and chase him down. - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: Mike Coslo Date: 10/25/2004 12:05 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. YOU are the one making that charge. Charge is such a nasty legalese sounding term. It's more like "observation". And yes, I do make that observation. Lennie does love to make those "tough sounding" accusations, then chastises anyone who dares to do the same. I just call them as everyone else can see them. Wouldn't it be better to shed light on what others may not be able to see? When you're already in the dark without a clue as to where the light switch is, the best you can do is fumble around and hope to hit it sooner or later... Lennie's DEFINITELY in the "...or later" stage. Now YOU tell us what the Titanic's sinking of 92 years ago has to do with amateur radio policy of today? Very very little. Actually, quite a bit. It was the need to have a "universal" communications medium that has drive the Morse Code issue for all these decades. Of course Lennie KNOWS that, has stated it himself...Re-stating it would ruined the rant effect. Jimmie wanted me to show ten kinds of respect and sorrow for all the passengers and crew of the Titanic who perished in 1912! When one would have been sufficient. Respect doesn't make a person a "bleeding heart". Of course Lennie has no respect or sorrow for those people. How can you respect anyone else when you have no SELF respect? Why do you wish to continue talking about Linda Hamilton? Well you brought her to the conversation. 8^) Who wouldn't...Unless, of course, your "preferences" of the "alternative lifestyle" mode...? So...this is now a FLYING newsgroup? No, but there are some on Netnews, I'm sure. It's only a "FLYING" newsgroup when Lennie wants to discuss his student pilot days in 1950-something. And it's a "MILITARY COMMUNICATIONS" newsgroup when Lennie wants to discuss 1950's-era Army RTTY or 1980's era "SINCGARS" radio. It's also a MODEL AIRPLANE newsgroup when he wants to parallel the AMA with the ARRL. And it's a "MENTAL HEALTH" newsgroup when Lennie wants to make allegations about other's "meds" or how "crazy" they are. In short, it can be ANY KIND of newsgroup that Lennie wants WHEN Lennie wants, but WOE BE to the Licensed Amateur who dares to deviate from Lennie's topic-du-jour. Why should I sell my soul for some high-rate morsemanship? Ahh, maybe there is the problem. You don't have to sell your soul, just study the material. I had great difficulty with Element 1 preparation, but it didn't do me a bit of damage. Here I am, soul intact , and just as fat dumb and happy as ever! 8^) Mike, if you ever notice, Lennie doesn't do ANYthing that requires him being more than an arm-length away from the computer. I do have a question. I had called you Lennie once, and I think you didn't particularly care for that. I've been calling you Lenover21, but that sounds kind of formal if a screen name can be called formal. Do you have a preference? Does simply "Len" work? Or "Leonard"? How about just "Putz", Mike...?!?! Works for me. Steve, K4YZ |
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , Robert Casey writes: One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination. Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test that with paying passangers aboard. Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light- years) to amateur radio policy. :-) So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur radio policy either. That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly amusing. Agreed! Len does more OT posting than anybody, and is told more often than anybody that he is OT. |
William wrote:
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , Robert Casey writes: One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination. Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test that with paying passangers aboard. Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light- years) to amateur radio policy. :-) So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur radio policy either. That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly amusing. Agreed! Len does more OT posting than anybody, and is told more often than anybody that he is OT. Not by me! AFAIC Lenover21 can post on anything he wishes to. Really, there isn't a need for any of us to be sensitive about this stuff. It is after all, USENET. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article ,
(William) writes: Agreed! Len does more OT posting than anybody, and is told more often than anybody that he is OT. ...by those who are so "OT" they are older than dirt. :-) Hey, gang, let's all make the Titanic disaster of 1912 the principle topic of this newsgroup!!! Hey, gang, let's all play like civil engineers and architects to indict the designers of the WTC!!! Hey, gang, let's all be Pilots In Command and talk all about flying!!! Hey, gang, let's all make sure Jimmie Who gets all that praise and respect for vacuum tube kluges which are State of the Art!!! All of which is vastly important to the few regulars in here who can't figure out how to start their own private Internet chat room so that they can all call the NCTAs nasty names behind their backs and be King of the Ham Hill! bwahahahahah small snicker in place of "hi hi" |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Really, there isn't a need for any of us to be sensitive about this stuff. It is after all, USENET. TSK. NO. VERY SERIOUS! Might be better than World Serious! This newsgroup is all about certain PCTAs needing a private chat room to damn the NCTAs to eternal hell for not loving morse. |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , Robert Casey writes: One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination. Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test that with paying passangers aboard. Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light- years) to amateur radio policy. :-) So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur radio policy either. That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly amusing. When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing. Try a quartet. :-) I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-) YOU are the one making that charge. Charge is such a nasty legalese sounding term. It's more like "observation". And yes, I do make that observation. Then I advise that your seeing an opthalmologist for an eye examination is a good idea. That way you could observe the several fracases that nursie starts with ANYONE who disagrees with him...besides Brian, try Hans and Dieter. It's all been public. Nursie is eager and chomping at the bit to FIGHT with anyone. I just call them as everyone else can see them. Wouldn't it be better to shed light on what others may not be able to see? Tsk. See that opthalmologist. Warning: You could be a victim of presbyopia and not know it... Or, as someone else wrote, "the replies just seem to write themselves!" Heh heh heh. Gosh...wonder who wrote that original phrase? :-) It wasn't Mike Coslo. It wasn't nursie. It wasn't Brian. It wasn't Rev. Jim, our Artist of the State. It wasn't Kellie. It wasn't Hans. It wasn't Dieter. It wasn't Jim Hampton. It wasn't Dee. It wasn't Kim. OK, that about exhausts the regulars in here. :-) Now YOU tell us what the Titanic's sinking of 92 years ago has to do with amateur radio policy of today? Very very little. Actually, NONE. However, the Titanic disaster is a favorite subject of his lordship, Sir James. As Lord High Admiral of the newsgroup (sailing these turbid waters every day), he has decreed the Titanic disaster IS a worthy subject for amateur radio policy. There we have it. When one would have been sufficient. Respect doesn't make a person a "bleeding heart". True enough. But only in the literal sense. Hello? Can you see some sarcasm in my remarks? :-) How did Bill Boeing's company get into ham radio policy? You guys just can't focus! :-) Not a matter of focus. Just some discussion among friends. And the discussions among friends tend to go where they will. So...you've joined the Society of Friends? We quake at the thought... But, of curse, you regulars all OWN this newsgroup. Despite it going wherever the Internet carries it. What you dictate as Right and Proper MUST be observed at all times! Or are you PCTAs just "high?" Ick, getting high is a sure fire method of wasting one's life. I'm "high" on life itself. No drugs or substances needed. Nor any morse code fantasies as the epitome of hobby radio arts. :-) I took the tests recently, all within the past 5 years, and a couple within 3 years. They are up to date enough, covering satellite ops, all manner of relevant band and technical questions dealing with present day equipment. They are up to date for at least mid 2001. You missed my point on that. The present-day U.S. amateur regulations are just fine and dandy to those who want to keep the morse code test for a license examination. Other than to this circle of "friends," somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 thousand (give or take) licensed amateurs MIGHT have some disagreement with that "up to date." There are presently 18 ("count 'em, 18") petitions for consideration on changes to U.S. amateur radio regulations made public by the FCC. It should be obvious (except to the oblivious) that all is NOT "up to date" in those regulations. Ahh, maybe there is the problem. You don't have to sell your soul, just study the material. Why? :-) I'm really only interested in ending the U.S. amateur radio license exam morse code test. I do NOT need to "study material on morsemanship" to do that. I do NOT need to "study material on any other test element" just to get a federal merit badge saying I am "authorized" something or other. You seem to forget that I was ON HF very legally and correctly over a half century ago, over four decades ago, over three decades ago, and even earlier this year...all without having ANY requirement to "study morsemanship material." I had great difficulty with Element 1 preparation, but it didn't do me a bit of damage. I always study for my blood tests. So far I've passed every time. I do have a question. I had called you Lennie once, and I think you didn't particularly care for that. I've been calling you Lenover21, but that sounds kind of formal if a screen name can be called formal. What do you see on my "signature" line? Tsk. If you can't understand my preferences, then that trip to an opthalmologist for you is necessary. [remember, watch out for presbyopia...] If you pick up an IEEE Membership Directory, you wil see my legal name in there. Been in there since 1973. That's the formal version. Or you can call me any name, nasty or otherwise, that you care to use. Even enclose it in quote marks as "Dave" does it. Just don't call me late for dinner. Shirley you jest. Roger that. Go to the John. Etc. |
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , Robert Casey writes: One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination. Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test that with paying passangers aboard. Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light- years) to amateur radio policy. :-) So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur radio policy either. That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly amusing. Agreed! Len does more OT posting than anybody, yet complains the loudest when others do it. Just another example of his double standard, do as Len says not as Len does mentality. Tsk. I say enjoy the hobby. I say don't try to force archaic, imaginary needs in testing for an amateur radio license just because some olde-tymers had to do it. I say enjoy freedom. I say try to keep up with the technology. I say the technology isn't restricted solely to what the ARRL publishes. Is that "bad mentality?" Or would you rather everyone be subject to rule by the raddio kopps carrying dazzling bright kopp badges? [that way you could get to push around others who don't agree with you and your opinions - which you call "facts"] Do I do "OT posting more than anybody?" No. If I DO talk about old time (OT) subjects it is for a reason of explanation since I've DONE those things and have first-hand experience. I don't need "confirmation" from any "league" organization to "document" it. :-) When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing. Agreed! The denials are almost funny. No. Tragic. The damp hankie slap on nursie's wrist isn't very good therapy, "doctor" Jimmie. Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and preferences..and to have them damn all others for not thinking and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded] That's a pretty good summation of what *you* want from this newsgroup, Len. After all, you're the one telling other people to "shut the hell up".. I've thought that Lenover21 wanted to be the moderator in here. He claims otherwise. It's how he acts that makes the claims ring hollow. Perhaps it's time to repost the "feldwebel" classic... Poor baby. Losing your "group leader" self-imposed title? Awwww. For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished on the Titanic in 1912. Nope. "Bleeding-heart imaginary sailors"? Who would that be? Yeah, what's with that? Len's trying to cover up his gaffe of laughing at them. Tsk, tsk. I don't, have never "laughed" at innocent victims of anything. What you've just said above is a damned LIE, sweetums. Not unexpected from the Wrong Reverend Jimmie Who. It was bound to happen that - as "led" by that other shining example of modern U.S. hamdom, the gunnery nurse. What next? Little eptithets in some language your aren't familiar with? [nursie has the lock on cute Yiddish pejoratives, doesn't know squat about Yiddishers or Judaism] Maybe something choice in Italian? [you could use my neighbor, the Scicilian, in that regard...:-) ] I'll just reflect that the subject made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband You mean James Cameron? If so, why not just use his name? You seem to have a serious problem calling people by their names. Perhaps you don't have the guts to do it. Have you ever noticed, Mike, that Len practically *never* addresses someone who disagrees with him by the name they use on their posts? He almost always has to make up an insulting nickname for them. Beggin' yer highbrow pardon, m'lord hamme-on-wry. and employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"... many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great tears on-stage on that Oscar Night. What possible significance does that have? And is that on topic for rrap? ;^) ;-) ;-) M'lord Hamme, what is the "significance" of discussing the Titanic disaster at all in an amateur radio policy newsgroup? Shouldn't you be taking that up before the House of Lords? Linda is quite quirky in a cute sort of way... or is that quite cute in a quirky sort of way? Very attractive, really. Not at the Jan Smithers level, of course. Tsk. Letting all your sexual fantasies hang out in public again? What possible significance has YOUR sexual fantasies to do with amateur radio policy matters? Oh, yes, you like to present them to show your "manliness?" Weird. Boeing doesn't test fly new aircraft with commercial paying passengers. OT? Commercial air carriers don't concern themselves with amateur radios...requiring ANY RF radiation source to be turned off when in-flight. Again, that and mention of Boeing Aircraft Company is NOT an amateur radio policy subject. Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-) Very OT So is claims that vacuum tube kluges you've "designed" in the 1990s as "state of the art." :-) Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and their chief test pilot) on takeoff. Yawningly OT So is Rev. Jimmie's regular "subject" of the Titanic disaster in here. Jimmie have fantasies of being a "hero" saving lives through moursemanship in that disaster scenario? Of course there was the PROFESSIONAL pilot who tried to roll a B-52 at low altitude. Did you see the case study of that one, Jim? Spooky! Too bad so many of the folk flying with him knew they were probably going to die some day with him at the yoke. Did you see the film clip? It's on the 'net at a few sites. Not the best quality, but scary enough. Has Jimmie actually RIDDEN in a B-52? Who cares? Jimmie never served his country in a military capacity, wouldn't have any need to ride a B-52 for any reason. Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date. Yes, they are. Seems like it to me! "Yawningly OT." Hi hi. :-) The morsemanship test REMAINS and that suits Mr. "I serve my country in OTHER ways" Miccolis, the artist of the state, just dandy. That will secure U.S. amateur radio for morse-tested hams and assure Jimmie someone to play with... They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating below 30 MHz...in the ham bands. Why does that bother you so much? Notice how Len avoids the relevant questions... What is the "relevant question?" :-) Oh, I see. You be da Lord Hamme-on-wry, de Lawgiver of what be relevant for all to follow! Beggin' me humble pardon, m'lord. It seems that some amateurs bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in the year 2004. Perhaps some do. Many more think that a simple test of Morse code skill at a very basic level is a worthwhile requirement for an amateur license. Why does that bother you so much, Len? Very "progressive." State of the Art. Len, do you live in a "State Of The Art" house? Drive a "State Of The Art" car? Wear "State Of The Art" clothes? Is your computer "State Of The Art", complete with broadband connection? If we owns PC's, we isn't state of the art. Roger that! Who had a "personal computer" in 1912? :-) Heck, the only HF radio equipment you've admitted to owning is over 20 years old. Definitely not "State Of The Art", yet you lecture others about it. "Lecture?" :-) Tsk, tsk, TSK! I have an R-70. Leo has an R-70. Both still work to specifications (which are quite good). Oh, yes, a couple of NCTAs mentioned it, so, according to m'lord hamme (on rye?) they are just snit. :-) Random though mode on: I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital (excluding the necessary analog bits) Mostly analog, really! Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat. Yep. How so? Can't get any digital parts to "recycle?" :-) "Why", the Grinch said as a smile lit his face, "Maybe for everything, everymode all has it's place." Indeed. Children's story characters? More fantasy portrayed as "fact?" I have a chunk of galena setting on the shelf in front of me - maybe I'll make a cat's whisker detector and radio from it Oatmeal boxes made of cardboard are still used. They have a plastic rim at the top but they still make good coil forms Go for it, Mr. State of the Art! :-) Reinvent the 1920s and claim your fame as the "innovator!" Good grief. Next thing you know, Rev. Jimmie will tout "Ralph 124C41+" as "mainstream science fiction!" :-) bwahahahahahah a snicker |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com