Youtube comments of mpetersen6 (@mpetersen6).

  1. 1100
  2. 1000
  3. 988
  4. 838
  5. 705
  6. 365
  7. 349
  8. 317
  9. 301
  10. 289
  11. 279
  12. 231
  13. 227
  14. 189
  15. 168
  16. 167
  17. 156
  18. 146
  19. 142
  20. 136
  21. 128
  22. 126
  23. 126
  24. 125
  25. 110
  26. 93
  27. 85
  28. 82
  29. 78
  30. 77
  31. 75
  32. 74
  33. 74
  34. 73
  35. 70
  36. 69
  37. 67
  38. 67
  39. 65
  40. 65
  41. 61
  42. The actual first landing (admittedly a really hard one) of any man made object was one of the Ranger photographic missions in April 1962. This was Ranger 4. In July 1964 Ranger 7 successfully carried out its photographic mission and then impacted 10.35°S, 20.58°W in the Mare Cognitum region. This was followed by two more Ranger missions in March and April 1965. The Ranger program was followed up by the Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter programs. The Surveyor program consisted of 7 flights with 5 successful landing and 2 failures. Surveyor 2 impacted after a failed midcourse correction. Surveyor 4 failed during the landing phase possibly from an explosion in the Solid Rocket Motor used to slow the vehicle to to a velocity such that the SRM and radar could be jettisoned and the final landing achieved with 3 liquid fueled vernier. Landing velocity was about 3 meters per second. Surveyor accomplished the first engineering project on an extraterrestrial body (a small trench). The Lunar Orbiter Program was used to conduct photo reconnaissance of the Lunar surface for both mapping purposes and selecting landing sights. In addition the Lunar Orbiters carried out Oblique Angle imaging. One of these photographs taken of the cater Clavius iirc at an oblique angle was considered one of the pictures of the year at the time. Additionally the Lunar Orbiter spacecraft took the first images of the Earth from cis lunar space. These included an image similiar to the Earthrise image from Apollo 8 and a similiar one of the Earth fully illuminated.
    61
  43. 61
  44. 60
  45. 60
  46. 59
  47. 58
  48. 57
  49. 56
  50. 55
  51. 55
  52. 54
  53. 52
  54. 52
  55. 52
  56. 51
  57. 49
  58. 48
  59. 47
  60. 46
  61. 45
  62. 42
  63. 42
  64. 41
  65. 40
  66. 39
  67. 39
  68. 38
  69. 38
  70. 38
  71. 37
  72. 37
  73. 37
  74. 37
  75. 36
  76. 36
  77. 36
  78. 35
  79. 35
  80. 34
  81. 34
  82. 33
  83. 33
  84. 33
  85. 32
  86. 32
  87. 31
  88. 31
  89. 30
  90. 30
  91. 30
  92. 29
  93. 29
  94. 28
  95. 28
  96. 28
  97. 28
  98. 28
  99. 28
  100. 27
  101. 27
  102. 27
  103. 27
  104. 26
  105. 26
  106. 26
  107. 25
  108. 25
  109. 25
  110. 25
  111. 25
  112. 24
  113. 24
  114. 24
  115. 24
  116. 23
  117. 23
  118. 23
  119. 23
  120. 23
  121. 22
  122. 22
  123. 22
  124. 22
  125. 22
  126. 22
  127. 22
  128. 22
  129. 22
  130. 21
  131. 21
  132. 21
  133. 21
  134. 21
  135. 21
  136. 21
  137. 20
  138. 20
  139. 20
  140. 20
  141. 20
  142. 20
  143. 20
  144. 20
  145. 20
  146. 20
  147. 20
  148. 20
  149. 20
  150. 20
  151. 19
  152. Call me old fashioned. Call me a reactionary. Call me whatever you want. But if you get to call me those things l get an opinion too. 1) I am completely against encouraging minors to begin tranisitioning early. 2) I am completely of the opinion that any transitioning up to and including surgery should not be done without comprehensive medical and psychological evaluation. 3) Any individual opting for this must be made thoroughly knowledgeable of sny medical and or psychological risks of said procedures and treatments. As well as signing off on multiple approval documents that are notarized. 4) The primary focus of any psychological or psychiatric therapy for any individual should focus on seeing if the individual can maintain their birth gender while still maintaining a healthy mental state. One other thing that needs to be understood by everyone. No matter how many hormone treatments an individual undergoes. No matter how many surgeries an individual undergoes said individual is still genetically be the gender they were born as. All they will ever be is an imitation of the gender they are assuming. Perhaps in the future medical science will allow an individual to fully transition from one gender to another. But if medical science ever reaches that point curing diseases and healing injuries will be childs play. PS, i am completely opposed to allowing transgender athletes from competing in competitive sports in the gender they are transitioning too assuming. Most males if they are transitioning and have already been engaged in competitive sports are going to have an unfair advantage in physical strength and speed. I refuse to see womens sports be thrown under the bus just to cater to a small minority of individuals.
    19
  153. 19
  154. 19
  155. 19
  156. 19
  157. 19
  158. 19
  159. 19
  160. 18
  161. 18
  162. 18
  163. 18
  164. 18
  165. 18
  166. 18
  167. 17
  168. 17
  169. 17
  170. 17
  171. 17
  172. 17
  173. 17
  174. 17
  175. 17
  176. 17
  177. 17
  178. 17
  179. 17
  180. 17
  181. 17
  182. 16
  183. 16
  184. 16
  185. 16
  186. 16
  187. 16
  188. 16
  189. 16
  190. 16
  191. 16
  192. 16
  193. 16
  194. 16
  195. 16
  196. 16
  197. 16
  198. 16
  199. 15
  200. 15
  201. 15
  202. 15
  203. 15
  204. 15
  205. 15
  206. 15
  207. 15
  208. 15
  209. 15
  210. 15
  211. 15
  212. 15
  213. 14
  214. 14
  215. 14
  216. 14
  217. 14
  218. 14
  219. 14
  220. 14
  221. 14
  222. 14
  223. 14
  224. 14
  225. 14
  226. 14
  227. 13
  228. 13
  229. 13
  230. 13
  231. 13
  232. 13
  233. 13
  234. 13
  235. 13
  236. 13
  237. 13
  238. 13
  239. 13
  240. 13
  241. 13
  242. 13
  243. 13
  244. 13
  245. 13
  246. 13
  247. 13
  248. 13
  249. 13
  250. 13
  251. 13
  252. 13
  253. 13
  254. 13
  255. 13
  256. 13
  257. 12
  258. 12
  259. 12
  260. 12
  261. 12
  262. 12
  263. 12
  264. 12
  265. 12
  266. 12
  267. 12
  268. 12
  269. 12
  270. 12
  271. 12
  272. 12
  273. 12
  274. 12
  275. 11
  276. 11
  277. 11
  278. 11
  279. 11
  280. 11
  281. 11
  282. Even for a "simplified version" beautifully made. My father served in an independent artillery battalion in Italy (173rd Field Artillery). Made up of part of the 32nd Infantry's division artillery that got split off when the division went from a square to triangular formation. When in Italy they managed to pickup some intesting pieces of equipment. One time he said they got their hands on some of these. He said compared to the M3 Grease Guns they had the Barettas were a Caddilac compared to a Model T. He said it was very easy to shoot with your left hand just supporting the stock behind the magazine. A lot of people make fun of Italian manufacturing (1) but over the years they have produced some very good machinery. Excellent machinists and foundry skills. 1) I think a lot of it has to do with their automobiles. Properly cared for they drive great. Just a little too lightly built for they way most Americans treat their cars. Especially in the days before imports tipped Detroit a new one. At one time if you wanted to buy machinery in certain industries you went to certain countries if you wanted the best. The UK for printing presses. Germany or Switzerland for really high quality machine tools. Italy for textile machinery. The US for machining lines capable of putting out millions of specific parts over decades. Or high quality grinders and gear cutting machinery. Not that other countries weren't able to produce good machinery. But there is always somewhere that's just a little bit better than the rest of the world.
    11
  283. 11
  284. 11
  285. 11
  286. 11
  287. 11
  288. 11
  289. 11
  290. 11
  291. 11
  292. For all the hype about battery banks etc I find I am more in favor of mechanical storage systems. One reason is they are already developed. These break down into two types. The first is flywheels. I'm sure there is room for improving efficiency but they are a currently (no pun intended) available technology. The second is gravity batteries. Today this mostly means pumped hydro. But pumped hydro isn't going to work in all locations. Either because of the topography. Or simply because the excess water might not be available. Another type of gravity battery is simply a large mass turning a generator as it falls. And no I do not mean that idiotic idea they were demonstrating in Switzerland. Instead have a tower enclosing 4 vertical shafts. In the shafts you have a box containing say 500 metric tons of sand. 1 million kg. That's around 1600kg per cubic meter. 625 cubic meters of sand. In a box 8.5 meters on a side. Build your tower whatever height you want. Install your motor/generator set not at the top of the shaft as in an elevator installation. But at or bear ground level. It just makes servicing easier. OK, you now you have four shafts grouped together in a square 20 to 30 meters on a side. If you build this in an urban center wrap the tower with office space, shops, apartments, what ever. These offer rental income. Is it elegant? Maybe not. But at say 50% efficiency I could live with that. Hell, even at 25% it looks attractive. How much energy would be stored in 500 metric tons raised to a height of 100 meters. The only other potential battery system I can see that is possible to put into widespread use is some sort of Thermal Battery. For home or individual apartment energy storage one idea that sounds good provided it works out is the iron/air battery. It offers the possibility of an individual battery about the size of a standard washing machine being able to provide power for up to 60 hours.
    11
  293. 11
  294. 11
  295. 11
  296. 11
  297. 11
  298. 11
  299. 11
  300. 11
  301. 11
  302. 11
  303. 11
  304. 11
  305. 11
  306. 11
  307. 10
  308. 10
  309. 10
  310. 10
  311. 10
  312. 10
  313. 10
  314. 10
  315. 10
  316. 10
  317. 10
  318. 10
  319. 10
  320. 10
  321. 10
  322. 10
  323. 10
  324. 10
  325. 10
  326. 10
  327. 10
  328. 10
  329. 10
  330. 10
  331. 10
  332. 10
  333. 10
  334. 10
  335. 10
  336. 10
  337. The Royal Navy also had a two years headstart unfortunately. In 1939 and 1940 there was no great support in the US to get involved in Europes "problems". Remember Lend Lease only got through Congress by one vote. Now as to whether or not the US Navy and its officers corps could over come it's own inate prejudices and actually learn from others at the time is another question. The graduates of Canoe U (Annapolis) are Naval officers serving the interests of the United States. They are not supposed to be serving the interests of their own career advancement or personal egos. The same can be said of any service academy worldwide. Besides what really set the table for victory in Western Europe and the Pacific in my opinion was the Two Ocean Navy appropriations bill. While FDR sometimes gets accused of intentionally dragging the US into WWII I personally don't buy it. The US was not going to go out of it's way to provoke either Japane or Nazi Germany into war*. But once the US was officially engaged it was all in. *One could say certain as actions did provoke Japan into war. The embargoes on steel and oil certainly were a push in that direction. And with Germany Lend Lease and fighting an undeclared war against the Kreigsmarine were two factors. One thing I think might have provoked a US declaration of war with Germany is if (an admittedly big if) during Rhein Maiden KMS Bismarck had encounted USS Texas while she was on patrol in the Western Atlantic. At one time iirc they were about 200 miles from each other. The Texas would have been sunk in all likelihood. And her escorts probably badly mishandled. The would have in all likelihood caused the US to declare war on Germany. A destroyer getting sunk with major loss of life (Rueben James) is one thing. A major asset like a battleship is another.
    10
  338. 10
  339. 9
  340. 9
  341. 9
  342. 9
  343. 9
  344. 9
  345. 9
  346. 9
  347. 9
  348. 9
  349. 9
  350. 9
  351. 9
  352. 9
  353. 9
  354. 9
  355. 9
  356. 9
  357. 9
  358. 9
  359. 9
  360. 9
  361. 9
  362. 9
  363. 9
  364. 9
  365. 9
  366. 9
  367. 9
  368. 9
  369. 9
  370. 9
  371. 9
  372. 9
  373. 9
  374. There is another factor in the lifter centerline to cam cam centerline equation. The squareness of the lifter bore to the centerline of the camshaft centerline. When I worked in an engine manufacturing facility this was one of the major headaches I had to deal with. Several factors were responsible for this. The lifter bore being machined in multiple station on the transfer line (1) being one. Typically a lifter bore might have two drilling operations plus a roaming operation per hole. I was primarily involved in six cylinder blocks but that only can amplify the issues. 1) Drills and tooling wear. Cutting tools wear. Drill bushings wear. The guide bushings on bushing plates wear. The machine slides on machining stations wear. Two or three million cycles and misalignments will behind to appear. 2) These misalignments will effect accuracy. These can cause the drilled holes to be slightly off location. 3) Another source of potential misalignment is fixture wear. Part locator pins and clamping surfaces wear. This can cause the machined feature to be in a slightly different location in one station to be in slightly different spot relative to the print dimension than in another. If the clamping surfaces are wearing this will eventually cause the cylinder block to twist when clamped up in the station. 4) As tooling wears drill especially can move during the cut. They are far more flexible than most people realize. 5) Reamers even if they hav a bushing plate to guide them will have a tendency to follow the hole. One way to reduce a lot of these issues is to semi finish or finish the lifter bores in boring operations. Just machining 12 lifter bores in a block could take a set of machining stations around 100 feet in length. Tolerances on these features typically would be +/-.003 on location or less. The real killer though is squareness. Typically a lifter bore is .0001 per inch in squareness to the pan rail. But the cam itself may be +/- .003 to true position and .003 in parallelism to the crankshaft bore. The point of all of this is it is almost impossible in volume production to hold tolerances of less than .001 in volume production. 1) Typically components in modern internal combustion engines are machined in a series of sections of specialized machine tools. These sections are typically broken down as Operation sections. Typically devoted to toughing and proceeding on to various other semi finish and finish operations. A fairly simple part such as a con rod may require a machining line 100 to 150 yards in length (2). As the complexity of the part goes up the more operational sections that will be needed to produce finished part. These operational sections are usually separated by loading or unloading stations allowing individual sections to continue to produce parts if the one before or ahead is down for various reasons. This can be tool changes or various repairs being undertaken. 2) Typical operation sequence on a connecting rod would be the following A) Rough grind to finished with using a double disc grinder with the rod carried in a rotating plate with pockets that the rods fit in. This operation includes automatic inspection to allow adjustment of the grinding heads to control width B) Rough bore and semi finish of the pin and rod bearing diameters. Includes auto Matic gaging and tool compensatory C) Drill, ream and tap for connecting rod bolts D) Finish grind rod width E) Finish bore pin and bearing diameter F) Crack the big ends of the rods, brush the faces, insert rod bolts and torque. Cracked rods have an extremely accurate registration in terms of the cap and main body fitting back together. G) Drill oil must holes if required H) Press in pin bushings I) Finish hone pin and bearing diameters J) Final gaging of diameters and weighing of rods on each end. Most modern rods are sintered material that can be post processed forged after sintering. Rods in higher performance engines will have slightly different sequences of operations.
    9
  375. 9
  376. 9
  377. 9
  378. 9
  379. 9
  380. 9
  381. 9
  382. 9
  383. 9
  384. 9
  385. 9
  386. 9
  387. 9
  388. 9
  389. 9
  390. 9
  391. 9
  392. 9
  393. 9
  394. 8
  395. 8
  396. 8
  397. 8
  398. 8
  399. 8
  400. 8
  401. 8
  402. 8
  403. 8
  404. 8
  405. 8
  406. 8
  407. 8
  408. 8
  409. 8
  410. 8
  411. 8
  412. 8
  413. 8
  414. 8
  415. 8
  416. 8
  417. 8
  418. 8
  419. 8
  420. 8
  421. 8
  422. 8
  423. 8
  424. 8
  425. 8
  426. 8
  427. 8
  428. @philip joyce see So it went through redesigns. It's called "upgrades". It was realized early on they needed a "hole puncher". The first attempt at a more powerful gun was rejected simply because the crews could not function in the damn thing. 76 mm ,Sherman's were available for D-DAY. They were rejected for logistical reasons. In hindsight a poor decision. But then not training for the Bogage country was just as bad. As to survivability. Just anecdotal but my uncle survived three Sherman's in Italy. Not exactly the ideal tank country. Once 76mm Sherman's began to arrive in sufficient numbers working in conjunction with artillery and air support German armor wasn't that big of a problem. Yes they suffered losses. Some of them avoidable in hindsight. But if one was in a combat arm you were far better off in armored units than in the infantry or the 8th Air Force for that matter. As to the Pershing being rushed into production. It was barely ready in late '44 and early '45. As witnessed by it's fairly rapid development into the M-46/47/48 series of tanks. The Sherman continued to serve in combat until the Yon Kippur War of '73. The near suicidal stand of the Israeli M-4's on the Golan Heights being pretty much it's last use in combat. The Sherman wasn't perfect. Neither was the M-26. Or the Cromwell, Comet, Churchill, Valentine or any other British design until the Centurion. Maybe. Underpowered Pershing. As where the Panther, the Tiger. The Sherman was designed around a 9 cylinder radial to start with. Why? Because they where available and fit the power to weight ratio and packaging size the Armored Board was looking for. And they were adapted for Twin GMC supercharged diesels, the Chrysler Multibank, 9 cylinder diesel radials plus the Ford V-8. The Ford was eventually developed back into the V-12 it started out as when designed to be a competitor of the Merlin.
    8
  429. 8
  430. 8
  431. 8
  432. 8
  433. 8
  434. 8
  435. 8
  436. 8
  437. 8
  438. 8
  439. 8
  440. 8
  441. 8
  442. 8
  443. 7
  444. 7
  445. 7
  446. 7
  447. 7
  448. 7
  449. 7
  450. 7
  451. 7
  452. 7
  453. 7
  454. 7
  455. 7
  456. 7
  457. 7
  458. 7
  459. 7
  460. 7
  461. 7
  462. 7
  463. 7
  464. 7
  465. 7
  466. 7
  467. 7
  468. 7
  469. 7
  470. 7
  471. 7
  472. 7
  473. 7
  474. 7
  475. 7
  476. 7
  477. 7
  478. 7
  479. 7
  480. 7
  481. 7
  482. 7
  483. 7
  484. 7
  485. 7
  486. 7
  487. 7
  488. 7
  489. 7
  490. 7
  491. 7
  492. 7
  493. 7
  494. 7
  495. 7
  496. 7
  497. 7
  498. 7
  499. 7
  500. 7
  501. 7
  502. 7
  503. 7
  504. 7
  505. 7
  506. 7
  507. 7
  508. 7
  509. 7
  510. 7
  511. 7
  512. 7
  513. 7
  514. 7
  515. 7
  516. 7
  517. 7
  518. 7
  519. 7
  520. 7
  521. 7
  522. 7
  523. 7
  524. 7
  525. 7
  526. 7
  527. 7
  528. 7
  529. 7
  530. 7
  531. 6
  532. 6
  533. 6
  534. 6
  535. 6
  536. 6
  537. 6
  538. 6
  539. 6
  540. 6
  541. 6
  542. 6
  543. 6
  544. 6
  545. ​ @dukeon  I have to agree the Solutrean Hypothesis is likely to be false. Unfortunately the hypothesis got hijacked by certain unsavory individuals. The Solutreans had to have been either early European Hunter Gatherers or related to people from North Africa. Stanford himself said North Africa was likely. They would not have been related to the Neolithic Farmers who basically took over Europe. Plus it opened up a can of worms in that it immediately became political in that Native Peoples rejected it as being a tool that could be used to reject any land claims. But note l said likely to be false. Art work found in the region the Solutreans occupied shows they were utilizing marine resources. Specifically images of what appear to be tuna and seals. You don't catch tuna from shore. That implies watercraft of some type capable of handling waves of decent size just to get on and off of the beach. Could seasonal hunters from Southwestern Europe have reached the eastern shores of North America? Possibly following seals. Although l think it unlikely l also have to admit it is possible. The only way to really prove it would be a stable find on a stone tool that could be traced back to a source in the area the Solutreans occupied. Evidently there is one. But the artifact in question was a surface find in the Jamestown area. Could the artifact be a hoax? It is possible. But if it is related to early settlers why would 17th or 18th century settlers being using stone tools. And if the artifact was produced by Native Peoples how did they acquire the stone. The artifact in question has been traced to a quarry known to be used by Solutrean flint knappers. In the end l suspect we will find the peopling of the Americas a much more complicated and older story.
    6
  546. 6
  547. 6
  548. 6
  549. 6
  550. 6
  551. 6
  552. 6
  553. 6
  554. 6
  555. 6
  556. 6
  557. 6
  558. 6
  559. 6
  560. 6
  561. 6
  562. 6
  563. 6
  564. 6
  565. 6
  566. 6
  567. 6
  568. 6
  569. 6
  570. 6
  571. 6
  572. 6
  573. 6
  574. 6
  575. 6
  576. 6
  577. 6
  578. 6
  579. 6
  580. 6
  581. 6
  582. 6
  583. 6
  584. 6
  585. 6
  586. 6
  587. 6
  588. 6
  589. 6
  590. 6
  591. 6
  592. I vote for the water route. Boats have been around a long time. But who ever reached the Americas first it wasn't like they just packed their bags and decided to settle somewhere new. Any migration was likely a slow process that saw family groups split off when their numbers grew too large to be supported by their normal range. But there is one thing that may have speeded migrations along the way. If hunters were following seals or walrus into their summer feeding grounds then they could have noticed one population headed back the other way in fall. I suspect that a lot of the evidence of early human inhabitation of the Americas is under anywhere from 100 meters to 130 meters of water. Also there could have been early groups that died out for one reason or another. Where did the these people come from? The obvious answer of course is Northeast Siberia. The supposed genetic evidence for a southern route across the Pacific. I don't buy it. It's too far and any landfalls along the way are simply too tough of an environment. One possible route I could see having taken place by accident is from West Africa if there were coastal people that were fishing off shore and got swept out to sea due to bad weather. It's a long shot. Plus it would have to be a breeding population. The third possibility is along the fringe of the sea ice in the North Atlantic. The only way this could happen IMO is if a population in Western Eurasia was habitually hunting seals seasonally and wound up following the sea life down into the Maritimes or along the East Coast. The similarity between Clovis and Solutrean lithic point technology is intriqueing but not totally convincing
    6
  593. 6
  594. 6
  595. 6
  596. 6
  597. 6
  598. 6
  599. 6
  600. 6
  601. 6
  602. 6
  603. 6
  604. 6
  605. 6
  606. 6
  607. 6
  608. 6
  609. 6
  610. 6
  611. 6
  612. 6
  613. 6
  614. 6
  615. 6
  616. 6
  617. 6
  618. 6
  619. 6
  620. 6
  621. 6
  622. 6
  623. 6
  624. 6
  625. 6
  626. 6
  627. 6
  628. 6
  629. 6
  630. 6
  631. 6
  632. 6
  633. 6
  634. 6
  635. 6
  636. 6
  637. 6
  638. 6
  639. 6
  640. 6
  641. 5
  642. 5
  643. 5
  644. 5
  645. 5
  646. 5
  647. 5
  648. 5
  649. 5
  650. 5
  651. 5
  652. 5
  653. 5
  654. 5
  655. 5
  656. 5
  657. 5
  658. 5
  659. 5
  660. 5
  661. 5
  662. 5
  663. 5
  664. 5
  665. 5
  666. 5
  667. 5
  668. 5
  669. 5
  670.  @wolfpack4128  Where I live we used to have a large number of industrial facilities. All of them with unions. All of them are gone now. Out of business, moved South, consolidated in other locations etc. But the community has moved on to a large degree. Granted there are still those who long for the old days. It's understandable. You could buy a home, raise a family etc. But as you stated. They never understood economics or market forces. There is another factor in the decline of manufacturing in the Rust Belt that often gets overlooked though. A lot of industrial facilities dated from the 1920s or earlier. They were often inefficient to run and did not lend themselves to modernization. Also when they were built there location was often at the edges of the community they were built in. Eventually the the communities grew around them. Their primary mode of transport for materials coming in and goods going out was rail. As railroads began to shut down branch lines that were losing money these companies had to begin relying on trucks. With their location inside of cities often surrounded by residential neighborhoods this was not an ideal solution. I retired out of an automotive facility in 2005. We built engines. There were plans being looked at to expand and begin building transmissions. It closed two or three years later. One reason was the downturn in the economy. The second is the company (Chrysler) simply built too many different engines. At one time we built two different V-6s along with the 4.0 liter inline 6 and 2.5 liter four used in Jeeps. Model redesign and government regulations killed off the 4.0 and 2.5. The V-6s were dropped in favor of the newer Pentastar. The third reason was the plant was basically in the center of the city. Truck access in and out to the Interstate was more of a pain. Also a major portion of the facility went back to the 20s. Newer facilities with more efficient operationing conditions built in and being closer to vehicle assembly plants won out. Other companies in other industries often suffered the same problems. A wire rope company merged with another company. The other company had more modern facilities. That labor rates aside simply took less manpower to run. Another is a company that produces high quality hand tools. They decided to move all of their manufacturing to facilities they already owned and just keep the corporate HQ. All of these companies and others were unionized. In some cases it was the union that was the last straw. In some cases it was simply economics.
    5
  671. 5
  672. 5
  673. 5
  674. 5
  675. 5
  676. 5
  677. 5
  678. 5
  679. 5
  680. 5
  681. 5
  682. 5
  683. 5
  684. 5
  685. 5
  686. 5
  687. 5
  688. 5
  689. 5
  690. 5
  691. 5
  692. 5
  693. 5
  694. 5
  695. 5
  696. 5
  697. 5
  698. 5
  699. 5
  700. 5
  701. 5
  702. 5
  703. 5
  704. 5
  705. 5
  706. 5
  707. 5
  708. 5
  709. 5
  710. 5
  711. 5
  712. 5
  713. 5
  714.  @Tonatsi  How much of the issue of student debt is related to the fact that tuition rates in the US have for decades gone up by amount to well over the inflation rate. At one time in the US a college education was not excesseively expensive. Several things have driven up the cost of education in the US. One the expanding administrative costs involved due to meeting various governmental guidelines on policies. Another is the continual expansion of the education industry. And yes it is an industry. It ta,es in raw materials (students and money) and produces a product (graduates). Another problem as I see it is if we make college free to all just who gets to go. I seriously doubt we can afford to confir a college education on every HS graduate. One reason is cost. The second is not every one is suitable for a college education. Some of these are simply not up to the academic challenge. Others have different interests*. There is an other reason I really do not like the idea of expanding no cost education**. Is it fair to tax people who do not have the ability to enter into higher education to pay for those who can? *These I terests make include skilled trades etc. In the early 1970s shortly after I started an apprenticeship is was told by a state official that the state I lived in that a 4 year apprenticeship was worth more to the individual than a bachelor's degree. Obviously some degrees are worth more than others. **There is no such thing as free. Somebody is going to pay for it. Also it is my opinion that if society offers a free education to individuals it should be in those fields that directly benefit that society materially. Physicians, engineers, teachers etc. You want to get a degree in medieval literature. Fine go for it. Just don't expect everybody else to pay for it.
    5
  715. 5
  716. 5
  717. 5
  718. 5
  719. 5
  720. 5
  721. 5
  722. 5
  723. 5
  724. 5
  725. 5
  726. 5
  727. 5
  728. 5
  729. 5
  730. 5
  731. 5
  732. 5
  733. 5
  734. 5
  735. 5
  736. 5
  737. 5
  738. 5
  739. 5
  740. 5
  741. 5
  742. 5
  743. 5
  744. 5
  745. 5
  746. 5
  747. 5
  748. 5
  749. 5
  750. 5
  751. 5
  752. 5
  753. 5
  754. 5
  755. 5
  756. 5
  757. 5
  758. 5
  759. 5
  760. 5
  761. 5
  762. 5
  763. 5
  764. 5
  765. 5
  766. 5
  767. 5
  768. 5
  769. 5
  770. 5
  771. 5
  772. 5
  773. 5
  774. 5
  775. 5
  776. 5
  777. 5
  778. 5
  779. 5
  780. 5
  781. 5
  782. 5
  783. 5
  784. 5
  785. 5
  786. 5
  787. 5
  788. 5
  789. 4
  790. 4
  791. 4
  792. 4
  793. 4
  794. 4
  795. 4
  796. 4
  797. 4
  798. 4
  799. 4
  800. 4
  801. 4
  802. 4
  803. 4
  804. 4
  805. 4
  806. 4
  807. 4
  808. 4
  809. 4
  810. 4
  811. 4
  812. 4
  813. 4
  814. 4
  815. 4
  816. 4
  817. 4
  818. 4
  819. 4
  820. 4
  821. 4
  822. 4
  823. 4
  824. 4
  825. 4
  826. 4
  827. 4
  828. 4
  829. 4
  830. 4
  831. 4
  832. 4
  833. 4
  834. 4
  835. 4
  836. 4
  837. 4
  838. 4
  839. 4
  840. 4
  841. 4
  842. 4
  843. 4
  844. 4
  845. 4
  846. 4
  847. 4
  848. 4
  849. 4
  850. 4
  851. 4
  852. 4
  853. 4
  854. 4
  855. 4
  856. 4
  857. 4
  858. 4
  859. 4
  860. 4
  861. 4
  862. 4
  863. 4
  864. 4
  865. It did not matter if MacArthur, the Commander Asiatic Squadton and all of their staff did everything possible there is no way the US could have held the Phillipines or even part of them in early 1942. There simply was no way for the US Navy to effectively re-supply and get re-enforcements to the Phillipines. Not after Pearl Harbor. I agree MacArthur could be an egotistical ass and self promoter. But then again he was not the only one around. As to being caught on the ground. The Philipines had around 4 hours or so from the time the attack notification from Pearl Harbor went out. If the notification went out at 7:20 AM that means it was 3:20 AM in the Phillipines. Forget that it was Dec 8th. The International Date Line comes into play. Even so his air commander got a lot of his aircraft off of the ground to try and keep them from being caught on the ground. They were low on fuel and had to land. That's when Clark Field got attacked. Could the aircraft had been effectively dispersed to auxiliary air fields. Of course. Could they have operated effectively from them? I have my doubts. Even if MacArthur had authorized the available aircraft to launch attacks at Japanese bases on Formosa. Just how good was US intelligence on Japanese bases and or forces on the island. Following the plan of operations for ground units on the Phillipines for defense of the Islands. First the enemy has plans too. Both the IJN and the IJA got inside the decision loop of the US Army and US Navy. US forces along with the forces of the Philippines were reacting instead of forcing the Japanese to react to what they were doing. Another factor that comes into play was training levels. The training levels of US Army units in general was pretty low in 1941. In 1941 the US Army was rapidly being built up by the call up of National Guard units and the induction of draftees. The NG units had training levels of generally poor efficiency. While there may not have been any NG infantry units in the Phillipines there were NG armored elements on Luzon when the war started. These were equipped with M3 light tanks. Even though the money tap had started to open up in 1940 equipment does not just automatically appear. And in 1941 a lot of the armor being produced was going to the British in Egypt. Could the US forces in the Phillipines done better. Yes they probably could. They also could have done worse. Was MacArthur out if touch during WWll. Parts of it I think he was. Especially early in the operations on New Guinea*. His later combat operations actually had relatively low casualty rates. Units under his command also took back from the Japanese far more territory than US forces in the South and Central Pacific. The US Army landing on the Phillipines to retake them in 1944. Was it strategically necessary? Probably not. Was it morally necessary? In my opinion yes. The US had promised the Phillipines their independence before the war (July 45 iirc) and meant to keep that promise. *New Guinea is the second (or third depending on how you define Australia) largest island in the world. Its 1500 miles from Milne Bay to Sorong at its western end. It also contains some of the worst terrain on Earth.
    4
  866. 4
  867. 4
  868. 4
  869. 4
  870. 4
  871. 4
  872. 4
  873. 4
  874. 4
  875. 4
  876. 4
  877. 4
  878. 4
  879. 4
  880. 4
  881. 4
  882. 4
  883. 4
  884. 4
  885. 4
  886. 4
  887. 4
  888. 4
  889. 4
  890. 4
  891. 4
  892. 4
  893. 4
  894. 4
  895. 4
  896. 4
  897. 4
  898. 4
  899. 4
  900. 4
  901. 4
  902. 4
  903. 4
  904. 4
  905. 4
  906. 4
  907. 4
  908. 4
  909. 4
  910. 4
  911. 4
  912. 4
  913.  @Jelsick  The 290 was first introduced in the mid 1966 model year in the two door hardtop Rouge. The AMC Gen2/3 V-8 is pretty similiar to the Buick big block. Oil pump in the front cover. Same bore center distance. Thin wall castings except for the 390, 401 and service blocks. But that's where the similarity ends. Those could be machined on the crank webbing for 4 bolt mains. The earlier 250/287/327 were a completely different block. Similiar in some ways to the Ford FE. Deep skirt crankcase. The 327 4 barrel motors actually were a heavier casting with solid crank webs. There's a guy trying to push one as big as he can go. IIRC it's some where around 460 ci. The one GM big block that would have been legendary is Oldsmobile's W43. In either the 32 valve pushrod or DOHC version. One thing we see in some if not all of the billet ultra high end pushrod race motors is the cam raised higher in the block in order to optimize pushrod angles and shorten the pushrods. In the past various experimental twin cm engines have been built with the cams stacked vertically. One for intake and one for exhaust. One thing I wonder if anybody ever ran any twin cam engines with the cams being placed high up along side the cylinder banks such that the top of the lifters would be basically even with the top of the deck surface. For a pushrod this seems like an ideal situation as allows the shortest possible pushrod. In the 80s I had a Renault that had the cam so high in the block that the head actually had clearance in it for the timing gear and chain. Plus it was a hemi.
    4
  914. 4
  915. 4
  916. 4
  917. 4
  918. 4
  919. 4
  920. 4
  921. 4
  922. 4
  923. 4
  924. 4
  925. 4
  926. 4
  927. 4
  928. 4
  929. 4
  930. 4
  931. 4
  932. 4
  933. 4
  934. 4
  935. 4
  936. 4
  937. 4
  938. 4
  939. 4
  940. 4
  941. 4
  942. 4
  943. 4
  944. 4
  945. 4
  946. 4
  947. 4
  948. 4
  949. 4
  950. 4
  951. 4
  952. 4
  953. 4
  954. 4
  955. 4
  956. 4
  957. 4
  958. 4
  959. 4
  960. 4
  961. 4
  962. 4
  963. 4
  964. 4
  965. 4
  966. 4
  967. Is the United States the greatest country? Was it ever the greatest country? Two loaded questions. The answers of which tell you more about the person giving the answer than the country in question. The answer to the question is of course never simple. As a nation the US has failed to live up to the platitudes of the Declaration and its Constitution in many ways. But it must also be looked at as a nation created in a period of time where certain attitudes were commonly held. Over time we have become truer to those ideals. But our enemies today. Our own home grown enemies would tear the whole structure down because the roof has a few leaks. To me the question of whether the US is worth saving lies in the fact that so many people across the world seek to come here. America still really is the land of opportunity. A place where you can re-invent yourself. Is everyone going to succeed? Unfortunately, no, of course not. Today we have activists and politicians that seem to be engaged in legislating "success". The recent effort in California that mandated a raise of the minimum wage in fast food restaurants to $20 an hour is one example. Laws such as these will generally fail as prices will rise and business will shed employees in favor either fewer employees that work full time or increased automation. One reason these laws fail is because the law makers generally have no idea how businesses are run. The first thing a business has to do is provide a goods or service that people want. Second it has to make a profit doing it. If it doesn't that business won't be around very long and any employees will be looking for new jobs. Enough businesses fail without legislative hurdles. The other big enemy we face is the idea of equality of outcome. It simply cannot happen. Or be legislated to happen. Human beings are born with different strengths, different weaknesses and different personalities. Some are gifted intellectually, some aren't. Some are born that they can have great physucal strength, some aren't. Some are born that they have a drive to succeed. Most aren't. All we can do as a society to ensure anything like equality of outcome is ensure that every child has the opportunity to obtain an education up to a certain basic level. One can gain an education. One cannot be given an education. One cannot recieve an education. One can only be given a chance to gain an education. Today our education system is broken. For the amount if money our education system recieves each year one would think we have the best educated students in the world. Saddly we don't. And more money is not going to fix it. The cry for more money for education began in the wake of Sputnik. And it has necer stopped. Yet the quality of our K thru 12 graduates has continued to slip. That colleges need to have remedial courses tells you all you really need to know.
    4
  968. 4
  969. 4
  970. 4
  971. 4
  972. If he had filed a complaint what are the odds that neither his bosses at work or the police would have done a damn thing to protect his rights. Just look at how the police in Britian cater to and engage with the 5% of the population that are LGBT. Look at how police and prosecutors either ignored or protected the grooming gangs in the Midlands, The individuals nd groups that run things in Britian. The police organizations, the media, the politicians and the education system are scared if they do anything that they will be the next victims. As an outsider looking in IMO Britian is facing a period of violence that will make the Troubles in Northern Ireland look like an ice cream social. Expect in the next few years for suicide bombings to become as common as in some Muslim countries. Targets will be stores, churches, pubs and anywhere groups of people are gathered. And the tactic of labeling people who object or even simply do not want to be involved racist, phobic or whatever they can dream up will continue. We are seeing some of the same thing here in the States. Only now the target is Christians. If you are Christian you will be labeled as radical right wing extremists. It is starting with the media attacking "rural right wing Christians" as the new "dangerous" hate group. I will admit that there are some people who call themselves Christian's who hold extreme and hateful positions. But I expect that they are a far lower percentage than those in other groups that hold similiar opinions.
    4
  973. 4
  974. 4
  975. 4
  976. 4
  977. 4
  978. 4
  979. 4
  980. 4
  981. 4
  982. 4
  983. 4
  984. 4
  985. 4
  986. 4
  987. 4
  988. 4
  989. 4
  990. 4
  991. 4
  992. 4
  993. 4
  994. 4
  995. 4
  996. 4
  997. 4
  998. 4
  999. 4
  1000. 4
  1001. 4
  1002. 4
  1003. 4
  1004. 4
  1005. 3
  1006. 3
  1007. 3
  1008. 3
  1009. 3
  1010. 3
  1011. 3
  1012. 3
  1013. 3
  1014. 3
  1015. 3
  1016. 3
  1017. 3
  1018. 3
  1019. 3
  1020. 3
  1021. 3
  1022. 3
  1023. 3
  1024. 3
  1025. 3
  1026. 3
  1027. 3
  1028. 3
  1029. 3
  1030. 3
  1031. 3
  1032. 3
  1033. 3
  1034. 3
  1035. 3
  1036. 3
  1037. 3
  1038. 3
  1039. 3
  1040. 3
  1041. 3
  1042. 3
  1043. 3
  1044. 3
  1045. 3
  1046. 3
  1047. 3
  1048. 3
  1049. 3
  1050. 3
  1051. 3
  1052. 3
  1053. 3
  1054. 3
  1055. 3
  1056. 3
  1057. 3
  1058. 3
  1059. 3
  1060. 3
  1061. 3
  1062. 3
  1063. 3
  1064. 3
  1065. 3
  1066. 3
  1067.  @ObservationofLimits  Nodular cast iron cranks and rods were and are more than strong enough for most factory applications in reality. Scintered con rods are more than adequate for most applications as well. The higher output factory motors (Hellcats etc) are probably still using forged rods. Forged and billet rods in a high volume production run involve extra machining steps versus scintered rods (I used to work in an automotive engine facility). Cast iron rods require the same steps. The production process runs 1) Rough grind both faces 2) Rough and possibly semi finish the pin bore 3) Run the rod through a slitting operation to seperate the cap end. This may include roughing the bearing diameter depending on the operation used. 4) Perform all of the drilling and tapping operations along with cutting the bearing lock notch. 5) Finish grind or machine the mating faces 6) Assemble the rod and cap. At this point who knows were the original halves are. 7) Finish grind to width grinding both faces. 8) Semi Finish and finish the pin and bearing bore 9) Press in the pin bearing if a floating rod. 10) Bore and or hone pin bearing 11) Machine rod ends to match weight specs A scintered rod for a production engine has several production advantages 1) The rod and cap are never separated in that from the time the come out of the sintering process they are always a set. 2) A cracked scintered rod after cracking only requires a wire brushing of the mating faces and the rod can be re-assembled without any machining processes to the mating faces. The micro fractures of the surfaces provide a much better register surface. The facility I worked at over the years produced cast, forged and scintered rods. The cast and forged rods were labor intensive to produce. The scintered rods required maybe 10% or less man hours per part with less scrap. The reason the man hours were less was that the scintered rod once it entered the machining process never had to be handled until it was used on the engine assembly line. The cast or forged rods required handling for multiple operations. 3) The uniformity of the rods from one to another is such that the balance operation can pretty much be eliminated. Rods are checked for weight tolerance. Out of tolerance rods are scrapped. Eliminating operations reduces cost by eliminating handling, initial production machine tools cost and lower cutting tool costs
    3
  1068. 3
  1069. 3
  1070. 3
  1071. 3
  1072. 3
  1073. 3
  1074. 3
  1075. 3
  1076. 3
  1077. 3
  1078. 3
  1079. 3
  1080. 3
  1081. 3
  1082. 3
  1083. 3
  1084. 3
  1085. 3
  1086. 3
  1087. 3
  1088. 3
  1089. 3
  1090. 3
  1091. 3
  1092. 3
  1093. 3
  1094. 3
  1095. 3
  1096. 3
  1097. 3
  1098. 3
  1099. 3
  1100. 3
  1101. 3
  1102. 3
  1103. 3
  1104. 3
  1105. 3
  1106. 3
  1107. 3
  1108. 3
  1109. 3
  1110. 3
  1111. 3
  1112. 3
  1113. 3
  1114. 3
  1115. 3
  1116. 3
  1117. 3
  1118. 3
  1119. 3
  1120. 3
  1121. 3
  1122. 3
  1123. 3
  1124. 3
  1125. 3
  1126. 3
  1127. 3
  1128. 3
  1129. 3
  1130. 3
  1131. 3
  1132. 3
  1133. 3
  1134. 3
  1135. 3
  1136. 3
  1137. 3
  1138. 3
  1139. 3
  1140. 3
  1141. 3
  1142. 3
  1143. 3
  1144. 3
  1145. 3
  1146. 3
  1147. 3
  1148. 3
  1149. 3
  1150. 3
  1151. 3
  1152. 3
  1153. 3
  1154. 3
  1155. 3
  1156. 3
  1157. 3
  1158. 3
  1159. 3
  1160. 3
  1161. 3
  1162. 3
  1163. 3
  1164. 3
  1165. 3
  1166. 3
  1167. 3
  1168. 3
  1169. 3
  1170. 3
  1171. 3
  1172. 3
  1173. 3
  1174. 3
  1175. 3
  1176. 3
  1177. 3
  1178. 3
  1179. 3
  1180. 3
  1181. 3
  1182. 3
  1183. 3
  1184. 3
  1185. 3
  1186. 3
  1187. 3
  1188. 3
  1189. 3
  1190. 3
  1191. 3
  1192. 3
  1193. 3
  1194. 3
  1195. 3
  1196. 3
  1197. 3
  1198. 3
  1199. 3
  1200. 3
  1201. 3
  1202. 3
  1203. 3
  1204. 3
  1205. 3
  1206. 3
  1207. 3
  1208. 3
  1209. 3
  1210. 3
  1211. 3
  1212. 3
  1213. 3
  1214. 3
  1215. 3
  1216. 3
  1217. 3
  1218. 3
  1219. 3
  1220. 3
  1221. 3
  1222. 3
  1223. 3
  1224. 3
  1225. 3
  1226. 3
  1227. 3
  1228. 3
  1229. 3
  1230. 3
  1231. 3
  1232. 3
  1233. 3
  1234. 3
  1235. 3
  1236. Machine shops on board naval vessels. Even on a carrier you're going to be limited to just what you can make and or repair. Plus large navies such as the USN and I suspect the RN to some degree today have tenders attached to destroyer and submarine squadrons. But even these larger vessels are going to be limited. They may gave stocks of material onboard. Copper alloys (Brass and Bronzes), Cast Iron and Steels but that does not mean they have the correct alloy needed for manufacturing a proper replacement part. Plus I suspect that their heat treating capabilities were also more limited than a shore based repair or manufacturing facility. One thing that was done to maximize machine shop spaces on some vessels was the development of machine tools that could be used for multiple purposes. Something that is almost never done in a land based facility. A lathe makes a poor milling machine no matter what some boodgerin garden shed thinks. One example http://www.lathes.co.uk/adcock&shipleycombination/index.html There are others. I've worked over the with numerous former US Navy Machine Repair ratings that worked in and out of these ship board facilities. None of them were Machinist Mates. One had an interesting tale. He was stationed on a sub tender. One job he had was to open up the hatch internal diameter of a nuclear dub to allow a piece of equipment to be brought on board. He only had to open the internal diameter .100"/2.5mm or so. But the crew was very interested in his going it right. It took longer to set up the portable boring equipment than it did to do the job. And that brings up a related subject. There are companies that specialize in doing on site machining involved in the repair and refurbishment on machinery no matter where. At sites on land or at sea.
    3
  1237. 3
  1238. 3
  1239. 3
  1240.  @davidkelly4210  I think it depends a lot on just how we define a "civilization". Was the culture that erected, carved and buried Golbecki Tepe a civilization? I'd say so. It may or may not of had agriculture as we define it. But they certainly had some sort of social cohesion. The National Geographic Society commissioned Robert Ballard and his group to do a survey of the wrecks of Allied warships lost around the Dardanelles during the Galipoli campaign in WWI. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://licensing.screenocean.com/record/215989&ved=2ahUKEwjOoJWn86PwAhXbQc0KHRSPCUUQFjAnegQIKxAC&usg=AOvVaw1OSX9LOKOL4kGud0JDVlcE Finding the wrecks was no problem. It was known pretty much where the were. In addition his team also found a number of circular stone structures with a taller stone structure in their center. One immediate conclusion was that they were religious structures of some sort. That seems, at least to a layman like me, to be one of the go to conclusions about ancient discoveries. To me they might have had a different purpose. Could they have been some form of communal dwelling for an extended family. They were up to about 30 meters in diameter and the central pillar could well have been used to support roof beams that extended from the outer circle to the center. Doing any extended od more thorough investigation would require an underwater survey but the whole problem is that the wrecks in the area are war graves which complicates the situation. The kicker here is the area was last above sea level at least 8,000 years ago. I suspect that there are a lot of archeological sites in areas that were dry land during the last glacial maximum. I'm not saying lost cities* I'm simply saying archeological sites. In terms of the earliest civilizations. As I said above it depends on just how we define it. I'd say if you have a common culture, social organization and way of making your living a society is most of the way there. *there may be some urban sites off of India's western coast southwest of Mumbai. If so just when did they go under the waves. Plus how long was the time frame from the first dwellings made of organic materials to the first mud brick structures to working with stone. There is a lot we do not know yet.
    3
  1241. 3
  1242. It's farcical that we have ZERO data on how lower g affects human physiology. We have enormous amounts of data for 1gee. And quite a bit for zero gee. But nothing for the in-between. Two points on a graph. And we could have had some data in the last 4 decades. If we had wanted to. NASA to could have cobbled together an orbital facility that would have allowed gathering some data. Using mostly existing hardware. But getting such a program past the US Congress would have been impossible. Yes here has been a few experiments in LEO using centrifuges and mice etc. Big freaking deal. I'm not saying we should put a ring shaped station in orbit for this purpose. But we could have done it using either tethers (1) or spent stages and a small hab module. My favorite would've been two Shuttle External Tanks docked nose to nose. Attach a Hab Module to the bottom of one ET. After crew transfer spinup the assembly for .17 gee. Later spin it up for .34 gee. When plotted on a graph are the effects from 0 gee to 1 gee a straight line. Or some sort of curve. If a curve does the data show a slow rise then steepen radily as we apptoach 1 gee. Or does the data rapidly rise and then flatten out. And yes l know about the spin gravity experiments that took place on Earth. Both the US and the Soviets did this. But the experiments were more to see if humans could adapt to spin gravity. Not what the effects would be at lower gee. 1) One of the earliest tether methods l remember was in a Harry Harrison novel.
    3
  1243. 3
  1244. 3
  1245. 3
  1246. 3
  1247. 3
  1248. 3
  1249. 3
  1250. 3
  1251. 3
  1252. 3
  1253. 3
  1254. 3
  1255. 3
  1256. 3
  1257. 3
  1258. 3
  1259. 3
  1260. 3
  1261. 3
  1262. 3
  1263. 3
  1264. 3
  1265. 3
  1266. 3
  1267. 3
  1268. 3
  1269. 3
  1270. 3
  1271. 3
  1272. 3
  1273. 3
  1274. 3
  1275. 3
  1276. 3
  1277. 3
  1278. 3
  1279. 3
  1280. 3
  1281. 3
  1282. 3
  1283. 3
  1284. 3
  1285. 3
  1286. 3
  1287. 3
  1288. 3
  1289. 3
  1290. 3
  1291. 3
  1292. 3
  1293. 3
  1294. 3
  1295. 3
  1296. 3
  1297. 3
  1298. 3
  1299. 3
  1300. 3
  1301. 3
  1302. 3
  1303. 3
  1304. 3
  1305. 3
  1306. 3
  1307. 3
  1308. 3
  1309. 3
  1310. 3
  1311. 3
  1312. 3
  1313. 3
  1314. 3
  1315. 3
  1316. 3
  1317. 3
  1318. 3
  1319. 3
  1320. 3
  1321. 3
  1322. 3
  1323. 3
  1324. 3
  1325. 3
  1326. 3
  1327. 3
  1328. 3
  1329. 3
  1330. 3
  1331. 3
  1332. 3
  1333. 3
  1334. 3
  1335. 3
  1336. 3
  1337. 3
  1338. 3
  1339. 3
  1340. 3
  1341. 3
  1342. 3
  1343. 3
  1344. 3
  1345. 3
  1346.  @MrMartinSchou  I know I'm not opposed to Solar. But I do recognize that for baseload power there needs to be serious overcapacity built in order to accommodate the day night cycle. So far the only two Solar based power generation methods I know of are hydro and Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. Hydro depends on rain and snow that originates as solar driven evaporation. OTEC and it's related OTMEC depend on the temperature differential between cold deep water and warm surface water. For solar (whatever type) and wind* we need ways of storing the required power needed for those times when one or the other isn't producing any power. Fortunately there are storage systems out there. And some of them do not require the large investment in battery farms. The first is pumped hydro. This is currently in place in a few locations. Excess power is used to pump water to a reservoir and the water is released to spin turbines. Enclose the system and you can keep evaporation to a minimum. We should be able to do the same thing with heavy weight raised to a height and allowed to fall at a controlled rate. The cable system that raises the weights does double duty as a generator set. And no I'm thinking of the stupid proposal the uses large numbers of weights that need to be lowered to mate precisely with the previous one. Build a tower with x number of lifting shafts in its core. In the shafts have a large steel container. Fill the container with sand, rock, gravel whatever. But don't use concrete. The goal is cut CO2 production after all. The lifting/generator system is at ground level. This makes any servicing easier. Then around the outside wrap the tower with residential apartments, office space etc. The building does double duty. How much energy could be generated by 1 MT falling 1 meter. Of course it's not going to be 100% efficient. Nothing really is. Raising the weights are going to take more energy than the system can put out. But then so does pumped hydro. A third method for large Solar Thermal facilities is to concentrate the sunlight to melt a heat sink. Molten salt. The molten salt as it cools it heat is used to vaporize a working fluid or gas to spin a turbine. A forth type would use large flywheels spinning in a vacuum chamber supported in magnetic bearings. Musk likes to promote the battery solution. Small wonder. He's in the battery production business. When it comes to small scale energy storage hopefully the iron/air batteries will reach the market. One estimate I've seen is that one battery the size of an average washing machine could store enough juice to run the average home for up to three days. Longer if you cut power usage. But not everybody who owns a home can afford to install Solar. Also what about renters? You think that property owners are going to install solar out of the goodness of their hearts. They're in business to make a profit. In reality we do not have a shortage of energy. We have a shortage of public and political will. For large wind farms I think we should be looking harder at the vertical axis machines. For several reasons. I know they are not as efficient as the conventional machines. But 1) While not as efficient they can be spaced closer together. 2) By they're very nature they allow the generator set to be placed on ground level on a solid foundation. Not up at the top of tower. The only mechanical system you should really need at the top is the rotor bearing 3) Being at ground level and mounted to a foundation you eliminate the requirement to rotate the turbine into the best orientation. 4) The generator set being at ground level is easier to service. 5) Without the loads placed on the tower by mounting the generator set at the top of the tower the tower should be able to be built lighter. 6) The tower being lighter and needing to withstand less wind loading the foundation should be smaller. Just how big of a foundation does the average commercial wind turbine need?
    3
  1347. 3
  1348. 3
  1349. 2
  1350. 2
  1351. 2
  1352. 2
  1353. 2
  1354. 2
  1355. 2
  1356. 2
  1357. 2
  1358. 2
  1359. 2
  1360. 2
  1361. 2
  1362. 2
  1363. 2
  1364. 2
  1365. 2
  1366. 2
  1367. 2
  1368. 2
  1369. 2
  1370. 2
  1371. 2
  1372. 2
  1373. 2
  1374. 2
  1375. 2
  1376. 2
  1377. 2
  1378. 2
  1379. 2
  1380. 2
  1381. 2
  1382. 2
  1383. 2
  1384. 2
  1385. 2
  1386. 2
  1387. 2
  1388. 2
  1389. 2
  1390. 2
  1391. 2
  1392. 2
  1393. 2
  1394. 2
  1395. 2
  1396. 2
  1397. 2
  1398. 2
  1399. 2
  1400. 2
  1401. 2
  1402. 2
  1403. Sir, thank you for your frank and honest appraisal of some academics. Academics are people just like everyone else. With all the attendant baggage. Pride, blindful or willful ignorance, arrogance and preconceptions. These go along with the admirable traits of honesty, humbleness and being able to concede when they are wrong. That said there are fair number of YouTube channels that deserve the ridicule that academics heap on them. Aside from the delusional Flat Earthers (aka flattards) a fair number of these seem to involve antiquity and some of the more outrageous ideas that have cropped from the minds of some people. Myself I do happen to think that some of these channels do bring up valid points. And ask interesting questions. But they can not seem to stop them selves and usually jump right off the cliff into the big steaming pile of woo at the bottom. The woo includes the usual suspects. I think you know who I mean. Also there are other factors in academia was well as other areas of society. Political correctness and the seeming refusal on the part of some people to even entertain ideas that they might find offensive. One example. The whole Solutrean Hypothesis. Were the original proponents and later on Dennis Stanford on to something? I'm not qualified to judge but on one hand it seemed the idea had to be rejected because it might offend some "First Peoples" groups. Also the seizure on the idea that some truely offensive people did latch on to the idea that "Europeans" were in the Americas first (1). I admit I do find Stanford's proposed methodology for how Solutrean hunters following seals along the edge of pack ice in the North Atlantic might have ended up in North America intriguing (2). But the first people in the Americas? I do not think so. We know people were in Alaska 40K years ago. There is one out of place artifact in that was found in th he Jamestown area as a surface find. So unfortunately dating it is pretty much impossible. This is a flint knife blade. When the flint was traced to its source it was found to be from a quarry in Southwestern France in the area the Solutrean Culture inhabited. Is the artifact genuine? A fake? An flint knife dropped by an English settler or farmer. 1) I suspect that in the end we will find that people have lived in the Americas longer than we think. How long is an open question. As to the origins of people in North America pre Columbus aside from a few Old World sailors or fishermen that somehow got driven across the Atlantic because of storms the evidence is overwhelming they originated in Northeastern Siberia. Which actually is part of the North American tectonic plate. The reason we give Columbus the credit or blame is that's when contact between the Old World and the New stuck. 2) Stanford never implied that the Solutreans were Europeans as we think of them today. It is my understanding that he felt they originated in Northwestern Africa.
    2
  1404. 2
  1405. 2
  1406. 2
  1407. 2
  1408. 2
  1409. 2
  1410. 2
  1411. 2
  1412. 2
  1413. 2
  1414. 2
  1415. 2
  1416. 2
  1417. 2
  1418. 2
  1419. 2
  1420. 2
  1421. 2
  1422. 2
  1423. 2
  1424. 2
  1425. 2
  1426. 2
  1427. 2
  1428. 2
  1429. 2
  1430. 2
  1431. 2
  1432. 2
  1433. 2
  1434. 2
  1435. 2
  1436. 2
  1437. 2
  1438. 2
  1439. 2
  1440. 2
  1441. 2
  1442. 2
  1443. 2
  1444. 2
  1445. 2
  1446. 2
  1447. 2
  1448. 2
  1449. 2
  1450. 2
  1451. 2
  1452. 2
  1453. 2
  1454. 2
  1455. 2
  1456. 2
  1457. 2
  1458. 2
  1459. 2
  1460. 2
  1461. 2
  1462. 2
  1463. 2
  1464. 2
  1465. 2
  1466. 2
  1467. 2
  1468. 2
  1469. 2
  1470. 2
  1471. 2
  1472. 2
  1473. 2
  1474. 2
  1475. 2
  1476. 2
  1477. 2
  1478. 2
  1479. 2
  1480. 2
  1481. 2
  1482. 2
  1483. 2
  1484. 2
  1485. 2
  1486. 2
  1487. 2
  1488. 2
  1489. 2
  1490. 2
  1491. 2
  1492. 2
  1493. 2
  1494. 2
  1495. 2
  1496. 2
  1497. 2
  1498. 2
  1499. 2
  1500. 2
  1501. 2
  1502. 2
  1503. 2
  1504. 2
  1505. 2
  1506. 2
  1507. 2
  1508. 2
  1509. 2
  1510. 2
  1511. 2
  1512. The way some portions of Western and especially the US societies mistreat Christianity is really bothersome to anyone who really takes the teaching in the Gospels seriously. Far too often in my opinion "christians" in the west will cherry pick certain parts of the bible to support their contradictory views or beliefs. The biblical justification for slavery is but one example. Another is the treatment of certain version of the bible being treated as though they were handed down from the literal throne. I'm looking at the KJV version here. Yet by and large talking about about some of these things is taboo in American (1) society. Yes atheism (2) will criticize religion in general. But to me it seems not get to specific in terms actual points. Then we have the whole arena of Wokism. Wokism in my opinion and others is the newest religion on the block. It certainly has some of the trappings of religion. Certain core values and beliefs that are not open for debate. And if you do dare to disagree you can face being shunned or banished. Also known as cancelled. But by far the worst thing in Western societies today is there far too little civil discourse (3). The public conversation is dominated by the fringes with the majority in the center feeling their voice can not be heard simply because any rational debate is not allowed. And both sides are quilty. 1) Yes their are other countries in the Americas. And their citizens could lay claim to being called Americans. Tough luck. The US got there first. Live with it. After all it's not the most important thing in anyone's universe. 2) Can atheism be considered a "religion"? I think so. Any philosophy with a core number of beliefs can be as far as I'm concerned. 3) In some ways the media us to blame for this. As long as there has been media be it the town crier to todays broadcast and internet there has been bias in the media. In the era of print media some newspapers were literal organs of political parties. To the point the papers were literally called blank Democrat or Republican. But there were papers with a more centrist leaning. With today's media I see nothing in the center. And very little anything moderate from both sides. No wonder we hear discussion about a possible civil war.
    2
  1513. 2
  1514. 2
  1515. 2
  1516. 2
  1517. 2
  1518. 2
  1519. 2
  1520. 2
  1521. 2
  1522. 2
  1523. 2
  1524. 2
  1525. One reason I would think was demand on the part of the buyers or the lack of them. A second was the whole Craft System with Masters, Journeymen and Apprentices. This involved a whole different approach to production of every thing from cloth to metal working to cathedrals. Third was a preceived need. Another reason was the need of the State for the tools of the State. Ships and Arms. Edged weapons were made one at a time by blacksmiths and specialists in armor and blades. They did not need to be interchangeable. Once cannon with standardized bores and small arms became common it was required to produce ever increasing accuracy in manufacture. The first "machine tools" where most likely the ones made for boring cannon to the desired bore diameter. The first known industrial workshop for the production of interchangeable parts was in Southampton or Portsmouth. The Royal Navy set up an operation to make block and tackle for its ships. Before that things like Muskets (the Tower Pattern Musket, ie The Brown Bess) where made to a pattern but where not interchangeable. But once the screw cutting lathe made its appearance the world was changed forever. It brought the Industrial Age with all its benefits and problems. An industrial revolution could of happened 1500 to 2000 years before it did. The Romans are known to have large watermills with multiple mill wheels set up in series so that the water spilling from one mill would turn the wheel of the next. The principles of Gear Wheels were certainly known (that is one thing you need for a screw cutting lathe besides the leadscrew). For centuries the Chinese were the most technologically advanced society on Earth. But the social systems and conditions did not allow such a revolution to burst forth.
    2
  1526. 2
  1527. 2
  1528. 2
  1529. 2
  1530. 2
  1531. 2
  1532. 2
  1533. 2
  1534. 2
  1535. 2
  1536. 2
  1537. 2
  1538. 2
  1539. 2
  1540. 2
  1541. 2
  1542. 2
  1543. 2
  1544. 2
  1545. 2
  1546. 2
  1547. 2
  1548. My vote goes to the coastal route for an earlier migration. People have suggested a southern route out of Australia or Polynesia (1). But l don't by it. Yes people were fully human but l question whether navigational techniques or blue water voyaging technology would have been up to it. One needs to remember that technological change was very slow at this time. Not because people were stupid and could not innovate. I suspect that the slow pace of technological change had to do with the mental agility of people in general. Technological change in the 20th and 21st Centuries has been the fastest it has ever been. I do not think that is because we are smarter or more capable. I think it has to do with in any society there are very few innovators. And the societies of the Paleo, Meso and Neolithic periods were not that large to start with. Even if a tool maker in one extended family group found a better way to knapp stone tools for a more efficent blade how long would it take for the knowledge of the technique to spread to other groups? The same would go for techniques for any other technology used by these peoples. And aside from any meteoric iron or native cooper they might have found everything they had was either stone or organic materials. There is another thing to consider. The single most important tools needed for people to inhabit the more extreme climates of the Northern Hemisphere were the needle and awl. The needle for sewing clothings and the awl for piercing skins and hides to facilitate that activity. Being able to sew hides allows the building of boats made from skins sewen over a frame. 1) I've heard people suggest Antarctica. But that has to be insane. As extreme as conditions are there today imagine what they were like 20 or 30 years ago.
    2
  1549. 2
  1550. 2
  1551. 2
  1552. 2
  1553. 2
  1554. 2
  1555. 2
  1556. 2
  1557. 2
  1558. 2
  1559. 2
  1560. 2
  1561. 2
  1562. 2
  1563. 2
  1564. 2
  1565. 2
  1566. 2
  1567. 2
  1568.  @freeautoinsurance365  Add 55 my child. The 2J has thicker walls wear you need ig, deck, better ribbing, a deeper crankcase, a shorter crank for better rigidity plus a tougher grade of cast iron. The Barra and the RB are both around 245 to 255 on the Brinell scale. The 2J comes in at 275 +. The Barra's a good engine. But the best ever. That would be a bold claim for a one eyed fat man*. In my opinion the 5 best inline 6's ever built are the 2J followed by the Barra, RB series, BMWs and the XK Jag in what ever order you choose. The only really modern inline six ever built in the US was the GM 4.2 from the early 2000s. It never left the factory at the power levels as some of the others. But it was never turned to be. It would be interesting to see just what it would be capable of. The rest of the American inlines are boat anchors in comparision. The Chevrolet, Pontiac, Chrysler Slant 6 and the AMC 232 family all have potential. But are saddled with cross flow heads, pushrods except the Pontiac, long twisty cranks and take up a whole bunch of room. The Ford small six led to the Barra. But it's more like the great grandfather. Slant Six fans like to claim the Aussies made it into a Hemi. First not really a Hemi. Plus it's a different motor. People have made new heads for the US online sixes with crossflow heads using a set of heads from a V-8. There are the usual problems matching water passages and head bolt/stud locations.one problem used to be the distributor location. It would be in the way of the intake manifold. Modern ignition sensors eliminate that issue. The main issue is the donor heads. For the Chevy and Pontiac it's not as much of an issue. Same bore spacing as the SBC and the GM twin cam 4 valve V-6s. The Small Ford, just get an Aussie head. The Slanty. The bore spacing is different but not much. A little over 101mm. A BMW, a Mitsubishi G series or an Aurora/Northstar. The AMC. Ford or Chevy Small Blocks. The B.C. for the SBF is dead on the SBC is 4.400 vs 4.380. Another option is the Infiity V-8. Any of these projects would need good machining and very good welding skills. Plus there are valve clearance issues to be taken into account. The reason we never really saw a good performance inline 6 in the US was cost. A Pontiac 326 V-8 cost less to make than the 230/250 OHC. US V-8s were inexpensive to build. Fit in a wide range of platforms. The I-6s were entry level economy engines. But I think they missed an opportunity here. Early Mustangs etc sold a lot more sixes than eights. If the SCCA had promoted a class in addition to A Sedan (the basis for the Trans Am 5 liter cars) that specified something around 3.75 liters. Call it the Trans Am 75. 75% of the cylinders, 75% of the displacement. The SCCA amateur class call it A/75 Sedan. As a "showroom stock" class it could have gone over quit well. * Classic movie reference
    2
  1569. 2
  1570. 2
  1571. 2
  1572. 2
  1573. 2
  1574. 2
  1575. 2
  1576. 2
  1577. 2
  1578. 2
  1579. 2
  1580. 2
  1581. 2
  1582. 2
  1583. 2
  1584. 2
  1585. 2
  1586. 2
  1587. 2
  1588. 2
  1589. 2
  1590. 2
  1591. 2
  1592. 2
  1593. 2
  1594. 2
  1595. 2
  1596. 2
  1597. 2
  1598. 2
  1599. 2
  1600. 2
  1601. 2
  1602. 2
  1603. 2
  1604. 2
  1605. 2
  1606. 2
  1607. 2
  1608. 2
  1609. 2
  1610. 2
  1611. 2
  1612. 2
  1613. 2
  1614. 2
  1615. 2
  1616. 2
  1617. 2
  1618. 2
  1619. 2
  1620. 2
  1621. 2
  1622. 2
  1623. 2
  1624. 2
  1625. 2
  1626. 2
  1627. 2
  1628. 2
  1629. 2
  1630. 2
  1631. 2
  1632. 2
  1633. 2
  1634. 2
  1635. 2
  1636. 2
  1637. 2
  1638. 2
  1639. 2
  1640. I love documentaries like this. History with a passion and a human touch. At the same time I also enjoy the reasoned videos that question the mainstream historical record. With the discovery of Golbeki Tepe in Turkey. The geologic analysis of the erosion of the Sphinx Enclosure and other areas at Giza. The sonar images of structures in the Arabian Sea off of Mumbai. The enigmatic Yunagami site. I'm not talking about the woo that's some spout about aliens, power generating crystals or a supposed high technology civilization. When the Ice Age ended humanity saw the rise of sea levels of 120 meters or more depending on location. The reason I say more is some areas due to isoclastic responses of the Earths crust actually remained at sea level due to this effect. If some areas remained effectively at sea level other areas should have seen more submergence. And others less. Another reason I give some credence to these videos is what cultures of the past said about themselves. That they were inheritors of older cultures. A good example the King's List at the Temple of Seti I. This list goes back through the kings of Dynastic Egypt. And then keeps going. The standard response of Egyptologists is these are mythical figures. Perhaps they are. But what is wrong with taking the core of it at face value. Analysis of Aboriginal Oral Histories reaching back into the Dream Time have uncovered that inside the stories are truths about the landscapes, and the routes the early Australians followed. I believe our history is far older in terms of civilization that Sumer or Egypt or the Indus or any other known culture. Another thing is boats go back along way into pre-history. The Polynesians were basically a Neolithic culture in terms of their tools. Tools and weapons of stone, wood, shell and bone. Yet at the same time they are perhaps the greatest sailors and navigators in human history. Who is to say there were no equals to them in the past. Any time acedemia or mainstream archeologists say this happened because we know it did and the analysis is based on things like "context" take it with a grain of salt. And the farther back the more it becomes conjecture. One thing I would prefer to see more of is experimental archeology. For much of Human history all we have are artifacts. Fine. Do experimental archeology to find out just how tools and artifacts were made. And if you can't replicate the items then adjust your thinking. Look at new approaches. Or if in the end you can't say, just be honest and say you can't.
    2
  1641. 2
  1642. 2
  1643. 2
  1644. 2
  1645. 2
  1646. 2
  1647. 2
  1648. 2
  1649. 2
  1650. 2
  1651. 2
  1652. 2
  1653. 2
  1654. 2
  1655. 2
  1656. 2
  1657. 2
  1658. 2
  1659. 2
  1660. 2
  1661. 2
  1662. 2
  1663. 2
  1664. 2
  1665. 2
  1666. 2
  1667. 2
  1668. 2
  1669. 2
  1670. 2
  1671. 2
  1672. 2
  1673. 2
  1674. 2
  1675. 2
  1676. 2
  1677. 2
  1678. 2
  1679. 2
  1680. 2
  1681. 2
  1682. 2
  1683. 2
  1684. 2
  1685. 2
  1686. 2
  1687. 2
  1688. 2
  1689. 2
  1690. 2
  1691. 2
  1692. 2
  1693. 2
  1694. 2
  1695. 2
  1696. 2
  1697. 2
  1698. 2
  1699. 2
  1700. 2
  1701. 2
  1702. 2
  1703. 2
  1704. 2
  1705. 2
  1706. 2
  1707. 2
  1708. 2
  1709. 2
  1710. 2
  1711. 2
  1712. 2
  1713. 2
  1714. 2
  1715. 2
  1716. 2
  1717. 2
  1718. 2
  1719. 2
  1720. 2
  1721. 2
  1722. 2
  1723. 2
  1724. 2
  1725. 2
  1726. There are photographs of a P-40 with twin engines. Was Curtiss serious? I don't know. Twin engined prop driven heavy fighters IMO was kind of a stupid idea. Adaptations of fast twin engined bombers or attack aircraft acting as interceptors/night fighters is something else. After all just how many twin engined fighters were successful as fighters. Reasons not to build them. 1) Cost. Probably the most expensive thing on the aircraft is the engines. You've doubled that cost right off the bat. 2) Manhours. The most important thing a nation at war can ill afford to waste is the lives of its servicemen. Second is the time. A twin is going to cost more in man hours in construction time. If a single engine type can do the same job. Build that. Reasons to build them. 1) Armament. A twin engined aircraft offers the possibility of heavier firepower. And not just in the guns. More ammunition capacity. A good example might be the Whirlwind. It had its problems. Cost, manhours (1) and engine availability. But if it had been in service in the late summer and early autumn of 1940 German bomber (and crew killed, wounded or POW) losses would have been much higher. 4 20mm cannon versus 8 .303 machine guns. 2) The ability to carry airborne radar and the operator. Early radar sets were not exactly compact. Let the pilot do the flying and gunnery. Let the operator find the target and direct the pilot to it. But as engines got more powerful as the war progressed the rational for a twin faded. 1) The Whirlwind besides being powered by the Perigrine was also supposed to be more complex to build. Not so much systems wise but the airframe and wings. Somewhere there has to be chart on man hours to build in terms of the airframe its self for the various types. Turns out there is information out there. Just a quick dive gave BF-109-F 6k hours. Early P-51 10.5k down to 2.5k hours for later production. D model most likely. FW-190. Around 10.5k. Japanese figures tend to be high also. Spitfire. I saw one figure at 15k. Likely it came down during the war. Part of the process of reducing manhours lies in ease of construction. Look at the F-6-F Hellcat. Aside from the engine cowling and the base of the vertical stabilizer there are few if any compound curves. Ease of production starts early. On the drafting boards.
    2
  1727. 2
  1728. 2
  1729. 2
  1730. 2
  1731. 2
  1732. 2
  1733. 2
  1734. 2
  1735. 2
  1736. 2
  1737. 2
  1738. 2
  1739. 2
  1740. 2
  1741. 2
  1742. 2
  1743. 2
  1744. 2
  1745. 2
  1746. 2
  1747. 2
  1748. 2
  1749. 2
  1750. 2
  1751. 2
  1752. 2
  1753. 2
  1754. 2
  1755. 2
  1756. 2
  1757. 2
  1758. 2
  1759. 2
  1760. 2
  1761. 2
  1762. 2
  1763. 2
  1764. 2
  1765. 2
  1766. 2
  1767. 2
  1768. 2
  1769. 2
  1770. 2
  1771. 2
  1772. 2
  1773. 2
  1774. 2
  1775. 2
  1776. 2
  1777. 2
  1778. 2
  1779. 2
  1780. 2
  1781. 2
  1782. 2
  1783. 2
  1784. 2
  1785. 2
  1786. 2
  1787. 2
  1788. 2
  1789. 2
  1790. 2
  1791. 2
  1792. 2
  1793. 2
  1794. 2
  1795. 2
  1796. 2
  1797. 2
  1798. 2
  1799. 2
  1800. 2
  1801. 2
  1802. 2
  1803. 2
  1804. 2
  1805. 2
  1806. 2
  1807. 2
  1808. 2
  1809. 2
  1810. 2
  1811. 2
  1812. 2
  1813. 2
  1814. 2
  1815. 2
  1816. 2
  1817. 2
  1818. 2
  1819. 2
  1820. 2
  1821. 2
  1822. 2
  1823. 2
  1824. 2
  1825. 2
  1826. 2
  1827. 2
  1828. 2
  1829. 2
  1830. 2
  1831. 2
  1832. 2
  1833. 2
  1834. 2
  1835. 2
  1836. 2
  1837. 2
  1838. 2
  1839. The Olympics are about diversity. No "diversity" no matter it's perversity. Needs to be added. Suggestions for future Olympics 1) There needs to be a permanent site or sites for the Olympics. These sites can also be used for other major international sporting events 2) The Olympics are simply getting too big IMO. It seems every year that new "sports" get added. I would not be surprised if there is a competition this year for Lesbian Interpretive Aquatic Dance. Prune the elligable sports back to those of say the 76 Games. The same goes for the Winter Games. At least there a lot of the events can be used for commercial activities post Games. The same for the indoor events. But what do you use a luge or bobsled run for. How many nations that host the Summer Games have a use for a Softball or Baseball stadium. Events that should be pruned 1) Baseball and Softball. Reason is not enough nations play it. If fact all stick and ball games. Lacrosse, Field Hockey, Cricket, Golf etc. These sports already have major championships and tournaments. 2) Football aka Soccer. Already have the World Cup thank you. 3) Synchronized Swimming. It's a sporting event. Not an Ester Williams movie. 4) Sailing events. Set up separate championships if you want. And l say this knowing a good medal winner lived about 60 km from my home. See Wizard or Zenda 5) Shooting events with firearms. Set up separate championships. Some countries how would a person even begin to compete unless a police officer or in the military. The sole exception being the Biathlon in the Winter Games. Maybe a Summer Games equivalent. A half Marathon lugging a .22 or air rifle on your back. Most people do not realize that the hard part of the event is not the skiing or the shooting. It's the switching mental gears between the two. 6) Bowling, curling and similiar "sports". See Ernest Hemingway's opinion on sports versus games. I'm sure there others that could go. Eliminating some of these would lower the financial costs of hosting the Olympics. And sending full teams.
    2
  1840. 2
  1841. 2
  1842. 2
  1843. 2
  1844. 2
  1845. 2
  1846. 2
  1847. 2
  1848. 2
  1849. 2
  1850. 2
  1851. 2
  1852. 2
  1853. 2
  1854. 2
  1855. 2
  1856. 2
  1857. 2
  1858. 2
  1859. 2
  1860. 2
  1861. 2
  1862. 2
  1863. 2
  1864. 2
  1865. 2
  1866. 2
  1867. 2
  1868. 2
  1869. 2
  1870. 2
  1871. 2
  1872. 2
  1873. 2
  1874. 2
  1875. 2
  1876. 2
  1877. 2
  1878. 2
  1879. 2
  1880. 2
  1881. 2
  1882. 2
  1883. 2
  1884. 2
  1885. 2
  1886. 2
  1887. 2
  1888. 2
  1889. 2
  1890. 2
  1891. 2
  1892. 2
  1893. 2
  1894. 2
  1895. 2
  1896. 2
  1897. 2
  1898. 2
  1899. 2
  1900. 2
  1901. 2
  1902. 2
  1903. 2
  1904. 2
  1905. 2
  1906. 2
  1907. 2
  1908. 2
  1909. 2
  1910. 2
  1911. 2
  1912. 2
  1913. 2
  1914. 2
  1915. 2
  1916. 2
  1917. 2
  1918. 2
  1919. 2
  1920. 2
  1921. 2
  1922. 2
  1923. 2
  1924. 2
  1925. 2
  1926. 2
  1927. 2
  1928. 2
  1929. 2
  1930. 2
  1931. 2
  1932. 2
  1933. 2
  1934. 2
  1935. 2
  1936. 2
  1937. 2
  1938. 2
  1939. 2
  1940. 2
  1941. 2
  1942. 2
  1943. 2
  1944. 2
  1945. 2
  1946. 2
  1947. 2
  1948. 2
  1949. 2
  1950. 2
  1951. 2
  1952. 2
  1953. 2
  1954. 2
  1955. 2
  1956. 2
  1957. 2
  1958. 2
  1959. 2
  1960. 2
  1961. 2
  1962. 2
  1963. 2
  1964. 2
  1965. 2
  1966. 2
  1967.  @lostalone9320  If the RN and the Marines absolutely needed a SVTOL airframe it's my opinion they really should have just upgraded the Harrier. Face it nobody is going to be putting an amphibious force ashore in the face of air superiority. If all that's really needed is a close support airframe a STOL version of the Turcano would probably do. I also happen to think that the Marine MAUs should have a better option for gun fire support. Let's say the US needs to put a MAU ashore in the Hormuz Straight region (I'm not advocating it. This is hypothetical). The first thing the US Navy is going to do is to eliminate any potential threat from Iranian aircraft and SSMs. Second is any sub threat. Once the MAU is ashore if they need fire support they need it now. Now in the 5 or 10 minutes it might take to get the air raft there. This is one thing the LCS might have been good for. It's also another thing modularity might have been good for. If the Freedom LCS class had been built with the modularity concept built in base the modules on 40 ft standard shipping containers. These containers could have different configurations. One of which could be an integrated 155mm gun with its accompanying ammunition load carried in the container. The gun system could be based on a navalized version of the M-203 or the German PZz1000 (?). Additional containers could be carried onboard the accompanying replenishment vessel. Another design option for the containers could be accomodation space for troops assigned to the vessel for shipping security such as off the East African Coast or the Straits of Malacca.
    2
  1968. 2
  1969. 2
  1970. 2
  1971. 2
  1972. 2
  1973. 2
  1974. 2
  1975. 2
  1976. 2
  1977. 2
  1978. 2
  1979. 2
  1980. 2
  1981. 2
  1982. 2
  1983. 2
  1984. 2
  1985. 2
  1986. 2
  1987. 2
  1988. 2
  1989. 2
  1990. 2
  1991. 2
  1992. 2
  1993. 2
  1994. 2
  1995. 2
  1996. 2
  1997. 2
  1998. 2
  1999. 2
  2000. 2
  2001. 2
  2002. 2
  2003. 2
  2004. 2
  2005. 2
  2006. 2
  2007. 2
  2008. 2
  2009. 2
  2010. 2
  2011. 2
  2012. 2
  2013. 2
  2014. 2
  2015. 2
  2016. 2
  2017. 2
  2018. 2
  2019. 2
  2020. 2
  2021. 2
  2022. 2
  2023. 2
  2024. 2
  2025. 2
  2026. 2
  2027. 2
  2028. 2
  2029. 2
  2030. 2
  2031. 2
  2032. 2
  2033. 2
  2034. 2
  2035. 2
  2036. 2
  2037. 2
  2038. 2
  2039. 2
  2040. 2
  2041. 2
  2042. 2
  2043. 2
  2044. 2
  2045. 2
  2046. 2
  2047. 2
  2048. 2
  2049. 2
  2050. 2
  2051. 2
  2052. 2
  2053. 2
  2054. 2
  2055. 2
  2056. 2
  2057. 2
  2058. 2
  2059. 2
  2060. 2
  2061. 2
  2062. 2
  2063. 2
  2064. 2
  2065. 2
  2066. 2
  2067. 2
  2068. 2
  2069. 2
  2070. 2
  2071. 2
  2072. 2
  2073. 2
  2074. 2
  2075. 2
  2076. 2
  2077. 2
  2078. 2
  2079. 2
  2080. 2
  2081. 2
  2082. 2
  2083. 2
  2084. 2
  2085. 2
  2086. 2
  2087. 2
  2088. 2
  2089. 2
  2090. 2
  2091. 2
  2092. 2
  2093. 2
  2094. 2
  2095. 2
  2096. 2
  2097. 2
  2098. 2
  2099. 2
  2100. 2
  2101. 2
  2102. 2
  2103. 2
  2104. 2
  2105. 2
  2106. Machinery for fast merchant ships taking a bite out of warship machinery production. Limited production capacity? Could this part of the reason that the US Navy was very seriously interested in electric drive for larger warships at one point? I would think that you would need minimal or even no speed reduction between the steam turbines and the generator sets. Also at reduced cruising speeds it might be possible to run the motors for two of the screws off of one generator set. As an aside just what is the normal running speed for a steam turbine in terms of RPM? If the turbine is running at say 10,000 rpm and your screws are turning 200 rpm that's a 50:1 reduction. A four step reduction is possible with the greatest difference being 20t/64t. This also allows smaller gears to be used. But in gear train design unless strictly required it is generally good practice to use at least one odd number of teeth in a gear ratio. Better yet use two prime numbers. An example of this can be found in automotive final drives which are often in the ranges of 3.08 to 1 which can be achieved with a 13 tooth pinion and a 40 tooth driven. In this case the same two teeth will mesh every 520 revolutions of the pinion. But lower numbers of teeth on the driven gear also mean the same two gears will mesh more often. Plus using multiple steps means more shafts. More bearings etc. More potential failure points. It may be outside the scope of this channel but to me it would be interesting to see just what the processes used to build the gear reduction sets for warships as well as such item as the interrupted screw breeches of larger naval guns. I'm a reasonably competent machinist and I've cut a large number of gears in my working life but the ones in say reduction sets for ships are way beyond anything I've ever done.
    2
  2107. 2
  2108. 2
  2109. 2
  2110.  @dave8599  Nothing says you can't run industrial power tools off of hydraulic systems. The advantages. Constant torque at all rpms. On the fly Infinity variable spindle speeds from zero to 100% with nothing more than a flow control valve. Variable pressure output via pressure relief valves that take the place of transformers and/or rheostats. The downsides. Running tubing or hoses from a central supply. Leaks. All, and I mean all hydraulic systems will leak. Did i mention leaks. Noise. Hydraulic systems can be noisy. The last place I worked built industrial centrifuges for a variety of uses. One model model used a hydraulic motor to spin the centrifuge. The machines already had hydraulics on them as they use a hydraulic motor with flow control valves to control both the rpms and power output in terms of torque for the internal augers used to move the dewaterin material out of the machine. One thing the Amish do is to convert woodworking machinery to hydraulic and run the hydraulic pump with a gas or diesel engine. Your already having to buy the fuel anyway so why not just run the equipment with electricity from the generator. Or put in a couple of vertical axis wind turbines and use those. As to the vertical axis wind turbines. The aren't as efficient as the horizontal axis ones (40% vs 50%) but they are more efficient in terms of how much area they take up plus they have certain other benefits. One is that all you have at the top of the mast is the bearing set. Second is the generator is down at base level. Third is you do not have to be able to rotate them into the wind. https://www.centrisys-cnp.com/videos
    2
  2111. 2
  2112. 2
  2113. 2
  2114. 2
  2115. 2
  2116. 2
  2117. 2
  2118. 2
  2119. 2
  2120. 2
  2121. 2
  2122. 2
  2123. 2
  2124. 2
  2125. 2
  2126. 2
  2127. 2
  2128. 2
  2129. 2
  2130. 2
  2131. 2
  2132. 2
  2133. 2
  2134. 2
  2135. 2
  2136. 2
  2137. 2
  2138. 2
  2139. 2
  2140. 2
  2141. 2
  2142. 2
  2143. 2
  2144. 2
  2145. 2
  2146. 2
  2147. 2
  2148. The total amount of Solar energy the US gets per year is way more than what we use. And that's only the sun shine. Wind is nothing more than Solar at a second level. I'm all for us stopping to burn coal. After all why should we treat the atmosphere like an open sewer. We have options. 1) Solar and its second level uses. Those being wind and hydro. Another type of Solar is using the temperature between surface water and water at a depth to condense and heat a working gas to spin a turbine. Another Solar one step down would be to tap into the ocean currents. The annual flow of the Gulf Stream is way over what we produce every year. The big problem with renewables is storage for when the sun don't shine and the wind doesn't blow. There are options here as well. Compressed air, molten salt heat sinks, pumped hydro or gravity systems. Sure there are losses in each one. But coal and gas aren't exactly lose free. 2) Tidal. Sure it only works in certain areas. But a free source. The equipment costs but the energy is coming from tides generated by the Moon's gravity. 3) Geothermal. What if we could tap the heat in the Yellowstone Hot Spot. 3) Nuclear. The 4th generation plant and reactor designs are way different than the earlier plants like Fukishima or 3 Mile Island*. And a lot safer. Current designs are designed to be fail safe systems. Ultimately I expect fusion reactors to be practible in perhaps 15 years. Or maybe a little more. If I was making decisions we'd throw money into the most promising proposals that are not Tokamaks. The ultimate fusion reactor would run on the Proton-Boron 11 reaction. It offers the promise of direct generation of electricity with the reaction by product being Helium. We don't have a shortage of energy. We have a shortage of willpower and vision.
    2
  2149. 2
  2150. 2
  2151. 2
  2152. 2
  2153. 2
  2154. 2
  2155. 2
  2156. 2
  2157. 2
  2158. 2
  2159. 2
  2160. 2
  2161. 2
  2162. 2
  2163. 2
  2164. 2
  2165. 2
  2166. 2
  2167. 2
  2168. 2
  2169. 2
  2170. 2
  2171. 2
  2172. 2
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. One type of tap drill chart you will never find for screw threads is for metric threads. Simply subtract the pitch of the thread from the OD of the thread. That's your tap drill size. The only people who have never broken a tap are those who have never tapped a hole. That absolute worst thread size to tap is 10-24. Tap wrenches have minimum sizes they will hold. The spiral flute taps that push the chip forward are only to be used in thru holes. If using regular straight flute taps always start with a starting tap or a taper tap. Bottom taps are only to be used to finish a blind hole. Helical flute taps are meant for power tapping in machine tools. Cheap taps do not last. The tips of the individual threads will go dull almost immediately if used on tougher materials. Different materials have very different tapping properties. Steels with a few exceptions* will form strings. This is the reason that taps with straight flutes need to be backed of to break the chips. Cast Iron the chips will break off on small pieces. These chips when manually tapping do need to be cleared from blind holes. Copper based alloys can be real nightmare. Bronzes as they are being tapped will expand due to heat towards the hole. *There is a range of tool steels that are called Graphitic Tools Steels. O-10 is one. It has a machinability of around 110. It forms chips like cast iron. It is extremely stable in heat treat with excellent wear characteristics. Originally developed for use in Timken tapered roller bearings by Latrobe Steel. A subsidiary of Timken.
    1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. In any democracy the attitudes of local elected offcials on matters outside the borders of their own constituency. Especially outside their own national borders. Have little or no effect on the polices and practices that actually matter inside their own district, town, city village etc. It has about as much effect as declaring your city a "nuclear free zone" as declaring solidarity with Gaza has on whether or not the potholes get repaired. Or public spaces such as parks are maintained. Or local water systems, sewers and other public services are managed properly. Local elected officials are elected to look after local matters. If your local elected officials do not look after these matters but instead use the position to posture in the local community they should be voted out in the next election. This applies to communities in any nation that has real elections. The practice of some local officials in any democracy to enrich themselves at the expense of the citizenry is another matter. (1) Otherwise you may as well hire professional city managers or revert to officials who find their office through appointment or heriditary means (2). 1) This is another factor of massive immigration into First World (mainly what is refered to as "The West") nations by immigrants from nations where graft and corruption are just the way things are done. Not that these things are not done in the First World. But in the First World everybody knows it is illegal. 2) l am not a fan of hereditary forms of government except for one possible aspect. In such a system it is possible to raise the next generation of rulers, local or national, with a sense of duty to their posisition and responsibilities. Note l said possible. Not that they always would have a sense of duty.
    1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291.  @Canleaf08  Older people being spiteful towards millennials? It cuts both ways. Millenials (plus Gen X'ers etc) basically cheering because old people were dying of COVID-19? Yah I know it's not all young people doing it but the squeaky wheel is the one that gets noticed. The need for people who write code etc. What percentage of the workforce does that take? And how long before some bright group of people basically develop an AI to do it for you. You just tell it what you want. If they haven't already. We all can't be artists, or writers, or nurses, or doctors, or engineers, or any of a number of fields. When I was 10 years old just about every other 10 year old* wanted to either a baseball player** or an astronaut. Well not everybodies got the Right Stuff. In fact almost nobody does. A good example of somebody who does is Buzz Aldrin. Fighter pilot, PhD from MIT, astronaut, and a really good right uppercut. When I was looking to go to university I either wanted to be an architect or an engineer in some field. Preferably aeronautics. I envisioned myself the next Frank Lloyd Wright or Kelly Johnson then reality came crashing in. Wanting to save money for school (college was actually inexpensive then***) I began working g full time. While doing this I literally fell into a skilled trade where i was reasonably happy what was doing. It served me well, I was able to retire early. Plus it put me in demand for other job opportunities if I choose to pursue them. Not everyone can go to college. Or should they. Nor should they have their life doomed to barely scraping by as long as they are willing to apply them selves. *In the US at least **Subsitute what ever sport fits ***This is where the Boomers really screwed their kids. With the Boomers the number of people who went to college exploded for a variety of reasons. The education industry shoving it down their throats. And yes it is an industry. In the US young men who needed that draft deferment. And genuine opportunity in the economy. The result was a glut of people who had degrees in some fields. And of course some of the Boomers went into education. And then administration. And then to increase the number of students even more these administrators and educators developed new fields in which to earn a degree. All well and good. But these new disciplines needed administrative oversight. And they needed oversight. Colleges and universities began to become bloated on the administrative side. Just how many people employed at colleges and universities actually teach? And how many are literally doing nothing more than shuffling papers. Or electrons in actuality. This bloated overhead is one of the primary causes of the increase in the cost of college in comparision to the rate of inflation. The lowering of state support through tax dollars didnt help I will admit. But with the ever increasing cost of education in general it would eventually become impossible to support anyways
    1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. I'm too old and don't have the room for a hobby car anymore. Fastest thing I ever had was a 68 AMX with a 390. Did some stupid stuff on the street when I was young. If I got back into the old car hobby I'd be perfectly happy with either a 2 door hardtop Dart/Valiant or a Chevy II/Nova. The Mopar either a 225sla t or a 273 would be fine. The Chevy II, a 230/250 or a 283 would be more than enough. Or maybe a 64 Classic hardtop with a 4.0 with a 5 speed dropped in. Just something you can cruise in or take a roadtrip in. The ideal choice would actually be a 67 Firebird Sprint with the OHC inline 6. Why you might ask. It would have enough power plus it would be a survivor. Most of the ones left between accidents and rust have most likely had a 326 or a 389 stuffed into them. Although there was a guy from Canada that actually managed to convince the SCCA that the Z/28 engine was an option on Firebirds in Canada.* As to engine swaps. I personally do not have an issue with somebody stuffing a Ford into a Chevy or a Mopar into whatever. As long as you are not chopping up the last one of something its your car. If someone doesnt like it, tough, they can go cry in the corner. Or bitch online which is the modern equivilant. *For something really unusual how about an early Tempest with the four Pontiac made out of chopping a V-8 in half. That engine in my mind is a true slant type engine. It's got the pan rail horizontal with the cylinder bank slanted. Cross flow heads. Only the displacement is too big for a four without balance shafts. Heck it was bigger than the standard Slant 6. I know it is called a slant 6 but all Chrysler really did was lean the motor over 30°, put an oil pan on to accommodate the lean and rotate the port face on the head. You could do the same thing to any other US built 6 of the time. Actually the most interesting US built 6 of the 60s was the Kaiser 230 ish ci Tornado. SOHC, hemispherical combustion chambers, cross flow head and only one cam lobe per cylinder. Only built in the US for a couple of years. Kaiser moved the tooling to Argentina were it was used to power various Kaiser built Ramblers using out of US production sheet metal. https://www.4wdmechanix.com/moses-ludels-4wd-mechanix-magazine-1964-jeep-cj-5-a-vintage-stroker-inline-six-swap/
    1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. Just my opinion. Taranto and Pearl Harbor really did not offer any lessons to the operation of capital ships at sea beyond the fact that they truely were vulnerable to aircraft launched torpedoes. At both Taranto and PH* the ships sunk by torpedoes were basically sitting ducks at anchor/tied up in harbor. A more important the lesson the British (and the USN) should have learned from Bismarck is capital ships operating at sea unsupported are exposed to attack by determined torpedo bombers**. The main reason that the US Navy thought the Anchorage at Pearl Harbor was safe at least from torpedo attack was the depth of the harbor. Just be ause you think an air dropped torpedoe will bury itself in the mud iz no reason that a potential adversary can't come up with a solution to the problem. One important lesson that the US Navy probably did learn is that the standard battleships were extremely vulnerable to plunging fire and armor piercing bombs. Especially if they were converted 16" armor piercing shells from the Nagato. The really important lesson from Force Z is do not operate capital ships without either aircover or adequate anti aircraft capabilities either through your own ship board AA or escorting destroyers. *Another over looked factor is the repeated warnings that had come out of Washington due either to over reaction or miss read intelligence. **And yes I realize that the AA shells from the Bismarck should have been able to shoot the Stringbags down had they hit anything to set their fuses off
    1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. The pushrods have a manufacturing tolerance on length. + or - .010"? .005"? Also the valve seats gave a manufacturing tolerance from a certain feature on the head. Usually the face. This can be established by a specified spherical diameter set in the valve seat as the distance from the head face to the top of the sphere with the head set up on a surface plate so that the head face is parallel to the surface plate. That's an old school way. Now it's all done with CMMs. As to how the valve seat depths are controlled that can vary. The tooling set-up will specify the seat cutter at a certain distance from the mounting face of the cutter. The cutter body also carriers a carbide bushing to guide the valve guide reamer. But the cutter face where it bolts on to the spindle face can be vary. The spindle assembly drawings will specify a set distance from the spindle face to a control feature. It can be to the rear end of the front set of bearings on the spindle shaft (1) or it can be to a keyway in the bottom of the spindle body. It depends on how the machining equipment was designed. Another factor that can creep in is wear on the clamping surfaces in the fixture holding the head during machining. This can cause a slight twist in the head during clamping. Plus there are multiple machining stations being used to cut the valve seats and guides. In the old days the stations being used to the transfer lines used to do this type of manufacturing had solid stops to control depth. Run into the stop a couple of hundred thousand times and you will have wear. Today things are controlled with ball screws and encoders. Too shallow or deep. Edit the numbers. Each machining station is a dedicated CNC machine. The point is all of these tolerances stack up on top of one another. And they usually add up the wrong way. I used to work in an engine manufacturing facility (30+ years). Inline OHV 4s. 6s (2), V-8s and OHC V-6s. So I'm pretty familiar with engine manufacturing. Its possible that a couple of new techniques have shown up but I doubt it. I worked maintaining part tolerances and repairing machines and fixtures on the manufacturing floor plus in the plant Tool Room (3) rebuilding machines, repairing machine components, fixture work, machining replacement parts for machines and fixtures. My last four years there I rebuilt precision spindles and workheads. 1) A spindle consists of the entire rotating group 2) Kenosha Engine 3) Prevision machine shop. Not where they keep the tools.
    1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. Why is it the Left always fail to understand just what democracy means. Sometimes they seem to think democracy in a representative government means the people have a direct voice in government. A modestly sized city much less a nation state are far too large for such a system to work. The Representative of a district, region or whatever it is called is empowered to act in the interests of the people in that district. All the people. Not just the ones that voted for him or her. And sometimes that representative has to vote on issues in a way that is best for the whole city/region/state/nation even if that nay go against the percieved interests of the people they represent. The modern Left (1) percieve democracy as being a one party state controling legeslative, executive and judicial powers with only minor opposition represtation allowed to maintain the illusion of "democracy". Just look at the post WWll nations that embraced communism. And the titles of those nations. The German Democratic Republic. The only non lie in that name was German. It was neither a Republic or Democratic. And that is just one example. Another issue here is the term Far Right. The Left bandies the term and the label with so little regard for reality it has lost all meaning. Basically anyone to the right if their position on anything is labeled Far Right. This does not mean that Far Right elements do not exist in many societies. But not to the extent that Far Left elements seem to do. Both in my opinion should be shunned as extremists. 1) Personally I have a great deal of distain for the idea that a simple Left or Right label can be used to discribe anyone. Just as Liberal or Conservative can be used to discribe anyone. It is entirely possible for an individual to hold views on different subjects that can be both Left or Right. But far too often the extremists demand ideological purity.
    1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. I really don't think the US Army Ordinance Board did not realize the benefits of a smaller round able to do the job required of it. Frankly to kill or wound a human being by means of massive wound trauma. I think what happened is that having read the after action reports regarding the ranges at which most combat took place they did a "what about" in regards to those actions that took place at longer range. It is my opinion that they really did not to give up the capability of troops to engage the enemy at longer ranges. I also do not think the Ordinance Department expected the average rifleman to engage and hit targets at ranges out past 600 yards or meters. Just how many rounds were fired on average during WWII to one casualty (1). If you can force the enemy to take cover and stop him from doing what he wants but rather force him to react to what you do you are a fair way there to winning the fight. I really do think the Ordinance Board screwed up though. A smaller round that can do the job required of it that weighs less means a larger ammunition load per man for the same weight. It means lower recoil, potentially better shooting on the part of the rifleman (2) and other benefits to the infantry. (1) This also might have played into Ordinance Department thinking. Increased volumes of fire means increased strain on logistical system, the production system, costs (the increased costs are mainly going to be in the materials area. There will be a slight increase in costs man hours but mainly it's in the materials. Do you sufficient supply of copper and zinc for brass etc) Plys for the US you are looking at everything has to be produced, transported to a port, loaded on a ship, sailed across potentially hostile seas, unloaded and moved through the logistical system. (2) In reality just how many of the members of the average infantry squad, platoon or company really engaged the enemy with useful fire? 20%, 25%, more or was it less?
    1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504.  @edmandziuk3858  With the two best Championship Game format we could easily see a situation where for the next decade it could be two from the same 4 or 5 teams playing in Indianapolis every year. The likely suspects are Michigan, OSU, USC, Oregon and possibly Washington. With Washington a lot depends on their recruiting success. One thing we won't see anymore are games like the 50some to nothing bitch slap OSU put on Wisconsin. The way it stands right now the B1G and the SEC look to be the two premier college football conferences. That's just my opinion. One thing I do hope is that with Nick Sabban's retirement the luster will start to come off of Alabama somewhat. Michigan and OSU will continue to have strong programs. I suspect USC will be back as will some others. The Big 10 used to be the Big 2 and the little 8. I'd hate yo see the B1G* turn into the Big 4 (or 5) and the little 13 or 14 for decades. The weaker** programs such as Iowa, Wisconsin and Penn St are going to have to compete even harder for top recruits. Plus they face the possibility of promising players being headhunted by other programs. *Is it even legitimate to call it the Big 10 anymore? **Weaker in the sense they aren't in the same class as OSU, Michigan etc. When Wisconsin brought in Alvarez and Pat Richter in the 90s they really did establish a legitimate poseible top 10 program every year. Since then IMO they have slipped. Not quite to the level of the 70 and 80s though. When Nebraska and Penn St entered the conference I suspect they thought they were going to clean up in conference play. It hasn't quite worked out that way has it. Rutgers and Maryland? I have never figured that one out.
    1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. Of all know supervolcanoes there are more of them in Western North America than any where else*. I suspect this has a lot to do with the remnant of the Jaun de Fuca plate and perhaps other subducted Pacific Seafloor Plates that are still in the process of being absorbed back into the Mantle. But Yellowstone is a whole different ballgame. The hotspot that feeds Yellowstone has been active for a very long time. As North America has moved slowly to the Southwest due to its Plate motion the hot spot has repeatedly burned through the overlaying North American Plate leaving a trail of old caldera. Plus the hot spot likely fed the great Flood Basalts that buried parts of Washington. The only reason that the trail of old caldera fo not trace a fairly straight line to the Southwest is that the Pacific Northwest is rotating slowly in a clock wise motion. Approximently 50 million years ago the west coast of North America was in Eastern Eastern Washington. Various chunks of continental crust and island arcs have slowly been acreated to the western edge of the continent as the North Ametican Plate over ran the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate. One of the largest of these was a large volcanic province known as Siletzia. Portions of which comprise the Olympic Olympic Peninsula of Washington. For a good channel one PNW geology visit Nick Zentner's channel. He's a geology professor at UW Ellensburg *Yellowstone, Long Valley in California and Valles Calderas are just three. Some of the known North American supervolcanoes are likely extinct. Although there has been some activity in historic times. The various cinder cones in areas of the American West are evidence of this.
    1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. If you are done as a nation ask yourself why. Is it because your generation is so selfish large numbers of you refuse to start a family? Is it because you are too good to do work that you consider beneath you? Is it because you continue to elect politicians who care more about what the rest of the world thinks than what the residents of your country care about. None of what l said is racist, bigoted or jingoistic. I said nothing that made a statement about the white British, Americans, French or any other country. If you think l did or see it that way. That's your problem. If you think this is anti immigration. Its not. Any nation should be able to control immigration to a reasonable amount that its workforce needs can accommodate. That will not overburden its social systems. The US even the days of unlimited immigration (1) was still able to reject immigrants for health, criminal history or political views. If a person was an avowed terrorist would you happily let him into your country. In the past immigrants realized that to a large degree they would have to assimilate. If you wanted to participate in the larger economy you would need to learn the language. That you would need to learn to be tolerant of others views. No one ever said you had to give up your language, culture or religious beliefs if any. Today the Woke segment of society demands that illegal immigrants (2) and members of "protected classes" do not have to be tolerant of others and those that they refuse to be tolerant of must be tolerant on anything they demand. 1) Yes the US in the past had immigration exclusion laws. That's in the past. 2) All illegal immigration means that you have entered a country disregarding its immigration laws.
    1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. The de-industialization of many urban areas are also part of the problem. The causes are many. Competion from overseas. Companies seeking lower labor costs. Poor domestic quanity (1). Buyers of consumer goods for major retailers seeking ever lower costs. This can result in a company moving off shore just to be able to turn a profit and stay in husiness (2). The loss of jobs that might have supported a family has not helped. Maybe not supported a family in style but still put food on the table. The second major problem is the destruction of the American family. The number of children born out of wedlock is out of control. All over the country. Children need a father figure in their lives. If they do not have one at home they will seek one elsewhere. Where do young boys in Chicago's hoods have to look for a father figure? 1) Some of the issues with US manufacturing can be laid squarely at the feet of organized labor. Some simply were too successful at working to improve their memberships lives. A prime example is the UAW. But the people who blame everything on the unions forget that management carries a lot of the blame to. Possibly the most. Pursuing cost cutting so much it destroys the quality of your product. Product decisions made by corporations that result in producing an inferior product. Decisions made that change a companies culture that ultimately destroys the companies reputation. Look at Boeing for that one. 2) Look into WalMart and Rubbermaid. Every body loves a bargin. But if that bargin buys you a cheaper poor quality product. That does not last what have you saved.
    1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. 1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1
  2655. 1
  2656. 1
  2657. 1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666. 1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. 1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. 1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686. 1
  2687. 1
  2688. 1
  2689. 1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. 1
  2699. 1
  2700. 1
  2701. 1
  2702. 1
  2703. 1
  2704. 1
  2705. 1
  2706. 1
  2707. 1
  2708. 1
  2709. 1
  2710. 1
  2711. 1
  2712. 1
  2713. 1
  2714. 1
  2715. 1
  2716. 1
  2717. 1
  2718. 1
  2719. 1
  2720. 1
  2721. 1
  2722. 1
  2723. 1
  2724. 1
  2725. 1
  2726. 1
  2727. 1
  2728. 1
  2729. 1
  2730. 1
  2731. 1
  2732. 1
  2733. 1
  2734. 1
  2735. 1
  2736. 1
  2737. 1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741. 1
  2742. 1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749. 1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. 1
  2753. 1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. 1
  2758. 1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. 1
  2777. 1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. 1
  2781. 1
  2782. 1
  2783. 1
  2784. 1
  2785. 1
  2786. 1
  2787. 1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790. 1
  2791. 1
  2792. 1
  2793. 1
  2794. 1
  2795. 1
  2796. 1
  2797. 1
  2798. 1
  2799. 1
  2800. 1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1
  2803. 1
  2804. 1
  2805. 1
  2806. 1
  2807. 1
  2808. 1
  2809. 1
  2810. 1
  2811. 1
  2812. 1
  2813. 1
  2814. 1
  2815. 1
  2816. 1
  2817. 1
  2818. 1
  2819. 1
  2820. 1
  2821. 1
  2822. 1
  2823. 1
  2824. 1
  2825. 1
  2826. 1
  2827. 1
  2828. 1
  2829. 1
  2830. 1
  2831. 1
  2832. 1
  2833. 1
  2834. 1
  2835. 1
  2836. 1
  2837. 1
  2838. 1
  2839. When it comes taxes a lot people think "Fair" means they dont pay any taxes and everybody else pays through the nose. That's not what "fair" means. Fair in this case should mean equal. I'm all for a flat tax system. Up to a certain amount you dont pay anything. But once you hit that amount every body pays a flat percentage. No deductions, no dependents. Every other tax structure aside from state or local income taxes in the United States is a flat system. What's worse is Social Seurity is a regressive flat tax system that you stop paying when you reach a certain income for the year. Be it sales tax, property tax or federal excise tax. If I have ten times the taxable income as someone else I pay ten times as much. But it will never happen. The tax code is how politicians reward their friends and punish their enemies. I hear people complaining because Trump only paid so much in taxes. Do these people really think he sat down at the kitchen table and did them himself? No, his lawyers and accountants did them using every legal deduction and write off they could. They used a system put in place by politicians. The corporate tax structure is a different matter. Not all businesses are equal in terms of their costs of doing business. What business would make capial improvements if they couldn't write it off. I am in favor of business paying the same rate as individuals on profits. Some would say why not just tax them on the total amount they take in. I you have 100M in sales and you get taxed 10% on that and it actually cost you 95M to run the business just how long do you think your business will survive. And if government raises the Federal corporate tax those businesses will simply increase their prices to cover those costs to whatever extent they can.
    1
  2840. 1
  2841. 1
  2842. 1
  2843. 1
  2844. 1
  2845. 1
  2846. 1
  2847. 1
  2848. 1
  2849. 1
  2850. 1
  2851. 1
  2852. 1
  2853. 1
  2854. 1
  2855. I'm not going to say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What I will say is that property, especially in Urban Centers is expensive. Add in construction costs. Full masonary structures top out at around 14 or 15 floors. Unless you want the lower floors totally useless for anything. Steel framed buildings can of course go much higher. Early steel frames buildings were able to be clad in stone, brick or terracotta cotta. Ornamental work could be cast iron or terra cotta. But once you get so high just how practical is that. Especially if the building has no set backs. With set backs if the attachment of the ornamental work suffers a failure due to weathering at least it has some chance of landing on one of the lower set backs than street level. The Prudential building in Boston had a lot of trouble with losing widows. As to most glass boxes I agree they are soulless and depressing. The one exception I can think of is the Pan Am building on Manhatten. At least it's not a square box. Trump's recent Executive order requiring classical style architecture for federal buildings has of course met with disdain from the "art community". In reality the requirement for classical architecture has problems. Two buildings i can think of in DC that shouldn't be in a classical style are the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum (one of the most visited museums in the world) and Nation Museum of Modern Art. Current architecture need not be joyless. Calatavara's Milwaukee Art Museum is one example. Built as an annex to the original Lake Front structure (a soulless box). The new building if one watches the sunshade opening looks like a bird taking flight. It may not be to everybody's taste. But it is striking. At least the glass box isn't as bad as brutalism
    1
  2856. 1
  2857. 1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1
  2860. 1
  2861. 1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. 1
  2878. 1
  2879. 1
  2880. 1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883. 1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888. 1
  2889. 1
  2890. 1
  2891. 1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894. 1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. 1
  2901. 1
  2902. 1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. 1
  2906. 1
  2907. 1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. 1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917. 1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. 1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923. 1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928. 1
  2929. 1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. 1
  2936. 1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 1
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. 1
  2948. 1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957.  @jommeissner  OK, but you still have to build enough capacity to replace the existing fossil fuel infrastructure plus the capacity needed to support a completely electrical transportation sector. This includes not only the generating capacity* but the transmission lines along with the storage capacity for when your renewables aren't generating power. Little things like that inconvienent period between dawn and sunset along with periods when the wind doesn't blow. Another factor is the NIMBY effect concerning large scale wind or solar farms. The people in say Chicago might not care but the ones in bumfuck Iowa probably will. *we can probably afford to build the generating capacity in the West but what about in the so called Third World. Nations with lower economic resources, growing populations and severely strained public services now. I personally dont care if the generating capacity comes from advanced nucs (thorium or pebble beds), rooftop solar, ocean thermal (there was a pilot generating station off of Hawaii), wind, solar thermal or dust bunnies. We as a global society need to make a decision. As to energy storage rather than huge banks of batteries that use resources that might be better used in devices for base line power I really like the idea of molten metal or salt thermal batteries. Use your excess generating capacity to heat the storage medium and then when needed use that hot medium to heat a working fluid (water, nitrogen, CO2 etc) to run a turbine generator set. It might not be as sexy as a large bank of lithium ion batteries but it's probably cheaper in the long run. I'm not saying all of this is cheap. Or easy. Plus while all this is going on I personally think we should be putting more funding into research on fusion reactors. The DOE seems wedded to the Tokamak type of reactor. The current one under construction in France might achieve break even or excess power potential but in no way would lead to a working reactor. MIT has a design that is much smaller than ITER in France but has a design spec of a Q ratio of 2. That means twice as much energy out as going in. Plus MIT is designing the test reactor to be serviceable in that elements can be replaced if needed. Even if MITs test reactor cost $1B it would still be only 5% or less than cost of ITER. Besides the MIT program we should also be investing smaller amounts of money in alternative reactor designs that while they have a higher chance of failure also have a huge potential payoff. Think of them as the PowerBall of fusion research. Also a successful small fusion reactor would hand the Human Race the Solar System on a platter.
    1
  2958. 1
  2959. 1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. 1
  2964. 1
  2965. 1
  2966. 1
  2967. 1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. 1
  2980. 1
  2981. 1
  2982. 1
  2983. 1
  2984. 1
  2985. 1
  2986. 1
  2987. 1
  2988. 1
  2989. 1
  2990. 1
  2991. 1
  2992. 1
  2993. 1
  2994. 1
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. What's even worse is the serving officers who I would think had at least served at sea or even worse aboard submarines acting not to fix the problem but to act cover their own asses by insisting there was no problem. Not only not fixing the problem criminal denying it was worse. I see it as giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. Add in the declaring the maintenance manual of the Mk14's explorer top secret and locking it up. Too bad some submariner didn't have an uncle in Murder Inc. If the torpedoes cost about what a single seat fighter did and the Navy could not justify the cost of a testing program. How did the Navy justify all of the aircraft lost in accidents in the 20s and 30s. One would think that with the TDC on board US submarines the Board of Ordinance would want the best weapons on board to take advantage of the TDC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_Data_Computer Discussing cost, just how much did the TDC cost to develop and build. I know money was tight for all the services. After all the US had just fought "The War to End All Wars". So they could say "ain't gonna study war no more"*. The only problem with that is it only takes one side to start a war. It takes both to end it. Unless of course no one is left on the losing side. But of all the tight money it was probably spent more freely on the Navy than anyone else. The Army got the seconds with the Marines getting the scraps from the Navy and equipment the Army didn't want anymore. In one area the Army wasn't too bad off considering the state of budgets. That was in aviation. Because of funding provided by the Army and Navy Wright Aeronautical, Pratt &Whitney, Allison and Packard were able to develop the power plants used in WWII. Along with airframe manufacturers Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed, Martin, Grumman and Curtiss The Army itself has it's own Board of Ordinance debacle. During WWI the US Army issued far more M1917 Enfield rifles in 30.06 than it did Springfield M1903's. About three or four to one IIRC. After the war the Army had to decide which rifles to keep in service. Seeing as the Springfield Armory was a government owned and run facility and the '03 was a better target rifle and so out performed the Enfield at long range. It was decided to keep the Springfield. The Army, and its Board of Ordinance was wedded to idea of "Everyman a rifleman". So due to this and the 600 yard range qualification and National Match Events the better battle rifle was shown the door. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield Of course the mid 1920s is when the the US Army began the development of what would become the M-1 Garand *A continuing pattern in US history. It gets in a scrap and after it's over tells the military thanks very much and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. A good example of this is the basic scrapping of the US Navy post ACW at least in terms of blue water operations. Another is the adoption of the M-1873 Trapdoor Springfield which began as converted Springfield Fifle Muskets from the ACW. Arguably among the worst of single shot breech loading service rifles to enter service in the 1860s & 1870s. It was kept in service faaaaaaar toooooooo long only being replaced in the 1890s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_model_1873 Never mind the US had a perfectly serviceable bolt action magazine fed rifle in the 1880s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1885_Remington%E2%80%93Lee
    1
  2999. 1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003. 1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. 1
  3017. 1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021. 1
  3022. 1
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. 1
  3027. 1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032. 1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. 1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039. 1
  3040. 1
  3041. 1
  3042. 1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. 1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. 1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066. 1
  3067. 1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 1
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. 1
  3079. 1
  3080. 1
  3081. 1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1
  3086. 1
  3087. 1
  3088. 1
  3089. 1
  3090. 1
  3091. 1
  3092. 1
  3093. 1
  3094. 1
  3095. 1
  3096. 1
  3097. 1
  3098. 1
  3099. 1
  3100. 1
  3101. 1
  3102. 1
  3103. 1
  3104. 1
  3105. 1
  3106. 1
  3107. 1
  3108. 1
  3109. 1
  3110. 1
  3111. 1
  3112. 1
  3113. 1
  3114. 1
  3115. 1
  3116. 1
  3117. 1
  3118. 1
  3119. 1
  3120. 1
  3121. 1
  3122. 1
  3123. 1
  3124. 1
  3125. 1
  3126. 1
  3127. 1
  3128. 1
  3129. 1
  3130. 1
  3131. 1
  3132. 1
  3133. 1
  3134. 1
  3135. 1
  3136. 1
  3137. 1
  3138. 1
  3139. 1
  3140. 1
  3141. 1
  3142. 1
  3143. 1
  3144. 1
  3145. 1
  3146. 1
  3147. 1
  3148. 1
  3149. 1
  3150. 1
  3151. 1
  3152. 1
  3153. 1
  3154. 1
  3155. 1
  3156. 1
  3157. As to mass deportations. First you have the problem of finding them. One place you won't find them is in the homes of people supporting mass illegal immigration. Lord knows they aren't sleeping on their sofas. A second thing is seperating the wheat from the chaff. The biggest scam over the last four years was the claim "that you're seeking asylum". There are genuine asylum seekers out there. Those wre the ones fleeing repressive governments. But if we're going to want to stop illegal immigration one way to do it is to help improve the economic situations in some of the countries these people are fleeing. The President of El asalvador in an interview when questioned about illegal immigration said that nations in Central and South America that see large numbers of immigrants trying to enter the US bear part of the blame. They bear part of the blame because they by and large have not put their own houses in order. Granted in the past the US did not help with interventionist policies designed to help certain companies. United Fruit being one of them. The point is if people have a chance of improving their lives. They are more likely to stay at home. I do not expect that the US can fix all of the problems these nations face. I'm not sure we can fix some of our problems. The war on drugs proves that. The US appetite for narcotics has caused a great deal of the issues nations in Central and South America face. One thing l point out to people is a Cartel in say Mexico or a criminal gang in the US murders a rival or opponen. The drug users in the US that are customers of that gang or Cartel are accessories to the crime in my opinion. People don't like hearing that.
    1
  3158. 1
  3159. 1
  3160. 1
  3161. 1
  3162. 1
  3163. 1
  3164. 1
  3165. 1
  3166. 1
  3167. 1
  3168. 1
  3169. 1
  3170. 1
  3171. 1
  3172. 1
  3173. 1
  3174. 1
  3175. 1
  3176. 1
  3177. 1
  3178. 1
  3179. 1
  3180. This one excellent example of why a nation needs a written Constitution and an independent judiary to tule whether such laws violate said constitution. Sometimes free speech is in some peoples opinion hateful and hurtful. To bad, so sad. We do not get to live our life cushioned in bubble wrap only hearing those thoughts expressed we completely agree with. There are other aspects to free speech and being willing to listen to just what your opponents say. One is so that you understand what they are saying. Not what you think they are saying. The second is they may be right (1) and you are wrong. 1) Right as correct on the issue what ever it is. I hate the Left Right political view of the world. Labeling someone as Left or Right much less Far Left or Right on a particular issue causes people to assume that the persons views on all issues line up as that side of the political spectrum. A far better way of discribing a persons or groups political, social and economic leanings is a two or even three axis system. Even then seperate issues may need their own charts. One example could be foreign policy. The X or horizontal axis might be interventionist on one side and non involvement on the other. The Y axis would be the response. Say a nation or NGO interfers with your countries trade. The response could be anything from bowing to any demands to full on war with negotiations in the middle. And yes l was thinking of the Houthis in Yemen. One reason is even Gaza is resolved tomorrow the Houthis are not going away. They realize that they are sitting on a major choke point in world trade. If they make demands and cause enough inconvienence there will be nations that are willing to agree. Say they demand a "toll" of a certain percentage of the value of the ship and cargo. If such a "toll" is paid theship can pass freely. If not. Well this sure us a nice ship you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it. The legal term is Protection Racket.
    1
  3181. 1
  3182. 1
  3183. 1
  3184. 1
  3185. 1
  3186. 1
  3187. 1
  3188. 1
  3189. 1
  3190. 1
  3191. 1
  3192. 1
  3193. 1
  3194. 1
  3195. 1
  3196. 1
  3197. 1
  3198. 1
  3199. 1
  3200. 1
  3201. 1
  3202. 1
  3203. 1
  3204. 1
  3205. 1
  3206. 1
  3207. 1
  3208. 1
  3209. 1
  3210. 1
  3211. 1
  3212. 1
  3213. 1
  3214. 1
  3215. 1
  3216.  @morelanmn  Hence Ford's reason for developing that Autolite Inline 4 barrel carb for 1970 iirc. Basically think a 4 barrel Weber DFE with the carb throats spaced to match the intake port spacing on the Boss 302 heads. And small motors only in terms of how you perceive it. When the TA series started the the 2 Liter cars actually dominated due to none of the A Sedan (the 5 liter class) cars really being ready. Under the rules pre 1970 the only displacement modification you could do was overboring the motor to get up to the displacement limit. Ford and Chevy just happened to get lucky in that they had engines it was easy enough to just swap parts around. The 283 crank and the 327 block for example. Chrysler was SOOL in that the 270 just couldn't be stretched that far. AMC took the 290 block and cast it with thick walls on the cylinders. The block has a really wide bore center at 4.750. The race motors when built were punched out considerably. .078" would get you 302 CID while .098" gets you 305 right on the nut. The block had a factory rated overbore allowance of .125". Whether they did this intending to increase displacement for race purposes I don't know. But the previous AMC V-8s (250, 287 & 327) (1) all had .125" overbore allowance. In 1970 there was a rules change (probably due to lobbying from Chrysler) to allow destroking of motors for racing purposes from larger production displacement. This is what allowed Dodge, Pylmouth and Pontiac (2) to get into the game. The 1970 TransAm was in my opinion the best single racing season for any racing series in the US. Period. All the teams were competitive. Top talent at the wheel with good solid teams doing the prep. 1) Completely different beast than the Chevy 327. Came out 5 years earlier. Only thing in common is the bore and stroke. 2) Dodge and Plymouth destroked the 340. Pontiac destroked the 400 while AMC/Penske destroked the 360. The Pontiac had a massive bore for a five liter motor at 4.120" with a stroke of 2.840". A bore to stroke ratio of 1.45. The TA series really brought out any of the basic deficiencies of all of these engines. Especially the oiling systems. In 71 there was another rules change to allow dry sumps. Remember none of these engines with the possible exception of the Boss 302 were ever designed with racing primarily in mind.
    1
  3217. 1
  3218. 1
  3219. 1
  3220. 1
  3221. 1
  3222. 1
  3223. 1
  3224. 1
  3225. 1
  3226. 1
  3227. 1
  3228. 1
  3229. 1
  3230. 1
  3231. 1
  3232. 1
  3233. I seen info that the ideal stroke to rod length ratio is 1.75. How true that actually is I'm not sure. Stan Wiess has a web site with data on rod ratios, bore and stroke etc. A Chevy 327 is 1.7538. A Buick V-6 or 300 SB is 1.7529. A lot of Hondas are around 1.5. The only engine I can find data on that is right at 1.75 is an AMC 232. There's another factor that enters into this. And that's deck height. Plus with a really small bore and long stroke you start running into clearance issues unless the bore is noted or the deck height gets really tall. Big bores raise another issue. Unless you siamese the cylinders the crank gets really long. A good example of the effect on deck height is the Boss 302 vs the 302 in the Z-28. Both 4" bore with a 3.0 stroke. But the Chevy rod 5.700 while the Ford is 5.150. The rod to stoke ratios are 1.8968 vs 1.7166 respectively. The Ford could actually accommodate a longer rod by the use of a piston with the wrist pin higher in the piston. There are a large number of factors involved in the design of any engine. Longer rods, more reciprocating mass. Short deck height, smaller packaging. Plus on a OHV engine lower deck height, shorter pushrods*. Yes I know OHV is practically prehistoric technology. But ask yourself. Just how many drivers really make use of all the engine power they have any way *Another way to shorten push rods is to make the rocker arms so the pushrod seat is below the pivot point of the rocker. Another way is to place the camshaft much higher in the block so that the lifters are pretty much even with the deck face. Renault actually built a 1.6 liter with this set-up. Very short pushrods, cross flow head and a hemispherical combustion chamber. I've often wondered just how a V-8 with 2 camshafts mounted high in the block would be like. I don't know if it's ever been done.
    1
  3234. 1
  3235. 1
  3236. 1
  3237. 1
  3238. 1
  3239. 1
  3240. 1
  3241. 1
  3242. 1
  3243. 1
  3244. 1
  3245. 1
  3246. 1
  3247. 1
  3248. 1
  3249. 1
  3250. 1
  3251. 1
  3252. 1
  3253. 1
  3254. 1
  3255. 1
  3256. 1
  3257. 1
  3258. 1
  3259. 1
  3260. 1
  3261. 1
  3262. 1
  3263. 1
  3264. 1
  3265. 1
  3266. 1
  3267. 1
  3268. 1
  3269. 1
  3270. If they had an urban planning system that worked for them why not stick with it. At least they have to be better than places like Cabrini Green. Don't misunderstand. I'm no fan of of the Soviet Union. Maybe because I know I lived a good portion of my life in the crosshairs of an ICBM (1). In many ways I blame the Cold War more on the USSR than the US (2). I understand that the Soviet Union had legitimate security concerns. Instead of turning the countries of Eastern Europe into copies of itself requiring them to be neutral would have ratcheted tensions down a lot. 1) And I expect that the feeling is reciprocated. But then the Russian, OK Soviet, citizens were not the real enemy of the US and the West. The CPSU was. 2) Some actions the US undertook did not help either. Overflights for one. The Soviets had several big advantage over the US intelligence wise. The US and by extension Western Europe offers much more freedom of movement for the individual even foreign nationals. Plus the press in the US and Western Europe because there is always some portion of it in opposition to the sitting government. Simply can not keep their mouths shut about major national security issues. And this goes for more conservative or liberal portions of the media (3). 3) At various times the media likes to complain about censorship. And rightly so. Yet at the same time the Media constantly practices censorship. Only they call it editing. If a major story happens and a media outlet only prints or broadcasts certain aspects of the story. Or intentionally leaves out certain things that are important parts of the event. Not only is that censorship it is also a disservice to public as a whole.
    1
  3271. 1
  3272. 1
  3273. 1
  3274. 1
  3275. 1
  3276. 1
  3277. 1
  3278. 1
  3279. 1
  3280. 1
  3281. 1
  3282. 1
  3283. 1
  3284. 1
  3285. 1
  3286. 1
  3287. 1
  3288. 1
  3289. 1
  3290. 1
  3291. 1
  3292. 1
  3293. 1
  3294. 1
  3295. 1
  3296. 1
  3297. 1
  3298. 1
  3299. 1
  3300. 1
  3301. 1
  3302. 1
  3303. 1
  3304. 1
  3305. 1
  3306. 1
  3307. 1
  3308. 1
  3309. 1
  3310. 1
  3311. 1
  3312. 1
  3313. 1
  3314. 1
  3315. 1
  3316. 1
  3317. 1
  3318. 1
  3319. 1
  3320. 1
  3321. 1
  3322. 1
  3323. 1
  3324. 1
  3325. 1
  3326. 1
  3327. 1
  3328. 1
  3329. 1
  3330. 1
  3331. 1
  3332. 1
  3333. 1
  3334. 1
  3335. 1
  3336. 1
  3337. 1
  3338. 1
  3339. 1
  3340. 1
  3341. 1
  3342. 1
  3343. 1
  3344. Well said. We may never escape the specter of racism (1) on the individual level. But on a sociatal level we largely have (2). Yes some people do have privilege to a greater or lesser degree. But in todays societies in the West l would argue that is more a factor of wealth and or familial backround. Wealth can open doors. As can familial backround. Your father knows somebody at X firm, organizstion or company. A quiet word is said and and son or daughter finds a position. The son or daughter fall slightly short of the needed academic standards to enter Y university. A donation is made and the individual is admitted. Any one who thinks this does not happen is willfully ignorant. This is the privilege we here so much about. This privilege exists in all societies. And always has. 1) l think a better term for this is colorism. We are all of one species. Homo Sapiens. We are all capable of breeding with one another. The sooner we all accept this the better. This does not mean that we should or will. Personal tastes enter into this. That is preference. Not prejudice. An example is the old question about Ginger or Mary Ann. 2) On the societal level culture enters into things. If your birth culture values education aboveall things chances are you will do well academically. If it does not. Odds are you will not. Please do not ask me how to change cultural problems. The only answers l can come up with involve very totalitarian solutions. But there is another issue that needs to be faced. If everyone recieves at least the equivilant of a four year degree soon washing dishes or sweeping floors will require a degree. Not everybody is suited for higher education. What do we do about those at the bottom. Put them on a life of endless welfare benefits. I yhink we have found that does not end well.
    1
  3345. 1
  3346. 1
  3347. 1
  3348. 1
  3349. 1
  3350. 1
  3351. 1
  3352. 1
  3353. 1
  3354. 1
  3355. Sadly this was inevitable. The US went into Afghanistan for one reason. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. The Taliban sheltered the elements of Al Qaeda that planned and supported the attacks on 9-11. Once the Taliban and Al Qaeda in country were broken we should have left. You can't build a nation were there is no sense of nation to start with. If the society is based on extended family, clan, tribe and ethnicity before anything like a nation enters into it any one who tries nation building will fail. The situation in Afghanistan right now is a national embarrassment for the US. I simply hope every US national currently in the country manages together out. If they don't the blame lies in the Biden Administration. In the future I hope and pray the Armed Services of the United States are never again as missued as they were in Afghanistan. And that the Joint Chiefs have the balls to tell a sitting president that if we don't have an exit policy in place for after the mission is completed then not only no Mr/Mrs/Ms President but hell no. The lives and futures of the men and women who would have to carry out the mission are far too valuable to risk simply because of policy. Actually I think the US should seriously reconsider its responsibilities in terms of our treaty obligations. We can't be everywhere. We can't defend everyone. And if any nation we have a security agreement with isn't willing to step up for it's own security then fine. Then we won't step up for them. This does not mean the US should completely retreat behind it's own borders in isolationism.
    1
  3356. 1
  3357. 1
  3358. 1
  3359. 1
  3360. 1
  3361. 1
  3362. 1
  3363. 1
  3364. 1
  3365. 1
  3366. 1
  3367. 1
  3368. 1
  3369. 1
  3370. 1
  3371. 1
  3372. 1
  3373. 1
  3374. 1
  3375. 1
  3376. 1
  3377. 1
  3378. 1
  3379. 1
  3380. 1
  3381. 1
  3382. 1
  3383. 1
  3384. 1
  3385. 1
  3386. 1
  3387. 1
  3388. 1
  3389. 1
  3390. 1
  3391. 1
  3392. 1
  3393. 1
  3394. 1
  3395. 1
  3396. 1
  3397. 1
  3398. 1
  3399. 1
  3400. 1
  3401. 1
  3402. 1
  3403. 1
  3404. 1
  3405. 1
  3406. 1
  3407. 1
  3408. 1
  3409. 1
  3410. 1
  3411. 1
  3412. 1
  3413. 1
  3414. 1
  3415. 1
  3416. 1
  3417. 1
  3418. 1
  3419. 1
  3420. 1
  3421. 1
  3422. 1
  3423. 1
  3424. 1
  3425. 1
  3426. 1
  3427. 1
  3428. 1
  3429. 1
  3430. 1
  3431. 1
  3432. 1
  3433. 1
  3434. 1
  3435. 1
  3436. 1
  3437. 1
  3438. 1
  3439. 1
  3440. 1
  3441. 1
  3442. 1
  3443. 1
  3444. 1
  3445. 1
  3446. 1
  3447. 1
  3448. 1
  3449. 1
  3450. 1
  3451. 1
  3452. 1
  3453. I think the criticism is valid. It doesn't meet the Sagan level of proof. The one about extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence. But as more evidence dribbles in worldwide our picture of the peopling of not only America but the world in general will get both clearer and murkier at the same time. I suspect that one of the reasons for human expansion has been population pressures. Hunter gatherers need more area than farmers in general. A clan or tribe gets so large and part splits off to find new ranges. Another thing that may have happened is a chain reaction of migration. Group A pushes Group B who pushes Group C etc. One thing that bothers me about any seeming reasonable idea is that these ideas can attract the people on the fringe. Look at the Solutrean Hypothesis. Yes its controversial. Predictably certain racist groups latched on to it. Never mind that Dennis Stanford has never said the Solutreans were what today we call Europeans. This idea of course gets attacked from the other side as racist because it seeks to dispossess Native Americans. But what if it's true. Also what if there were a series of waves of migration. Not only into the Americas but world wide. How much has the topography of North America changed because of the Wisconsin and Illinois glacial periods and the flooding that would have accompanied the retreating of the ice sheets. All it takes is one solid site to cause a complete rethinking of what we think we know. If I were a graduate student in archeology or anthropology I would seriously consider looking at sites with known ash layers that can be traced to known and dated eruptions. And start looking under those layers.
    1
  3454. 1
  3455. 1
  3456. 1
  3457. 1
  3458. 1
  3459. 1
  3460. 1
  3461. 1
  3462. 1
  3463. 1
  3464. 1
  3465. 1
  3466. 1
  3467. 1
  3468. 1
  3469. 1
  3470. 1
  3471. 1
  3472. 1
  3473. 1
  3474. 1
  3475. 1
  3476. 1
  3477. 1
  3478. 1
  3479. 1
  3480. 1
  3481. 1
  3482. 1
  3483. 1
  3484. 1
  3485. 1
  3486. 1
  3487. 1
  3488. 1
  3489. 1
  3490. 1
  3491. 1
  3492. 1
  3493. 1
  3494. 1
  3495. 1
  3496. 1
  3497. 1
  3498. 1
  3499. 1
  3500. 1
  3501. 1
  3502. 1
  3503. 1
  3504. 1
  3505. 1
  3506. 1
  3507. 1
  3508. 1
  3509. 1
  3510. 1
  3511. 1
  3512. 1
  3513. 1
  3514.  DarkEternal6  Workers that belong to industrial or construction unions has been on the decline ever since the 60s. Even without moving production off shore the move by industry to states that actively discourage unions would have only continued. Every company that is unionized in the US that has problems its is always the union the gets the brunt of the blame. Yes they share in the blame but most of the blame should be laid at the feet of the management of these companies. In the end quality of the product is not only a function of the factory floor and workforce. It is also a function of management making decisions about just what the level of quality is needed. This can be as simple as the allowable tolerances in a product to the overall build quality that management sets. In the 1980s the build quality of US automobiles was terrible compared to the Japanese when looking at the fits of body panels etc. What most people do not understand is almost all cars left the factory with the fit of the various body parts (doors, hoods, trunks etc) inrelationship to the body as whole in tolerance. The Japanese simply set a tighter tolerance. As to the quality of interior pieces a lot of that can be placed on the cost cutting attitude that if the part is really good when it costs a dollar and crappy at 98 cents we will use the 98 cent part. In the 1980s Ford contracted AMC to manufacture final drive gears for certain vehicles. The finished Ford parts made to Ford specifications howled like a banshee. The ones AMC made for themselves ran at least 10 decibels or more quieter. Remember the decibel scale is a log scale. Every ten points is a factor of ten. Its these types of decisions made by management that greatly effect quality. And in terms of industrial workers represented by unions Japan and Germany far outstrip the US. The vast majority of union membership in the US is in the public sector today.
    1
  3515. 1
  3516. 1
  3517. 1
  3518. 1
  3519. 1
  3520. 1
  3521. 1
  3522. 1
  3523. 1
  3524. 1
  3525. 1
  3526. 1
  3527. 1
  3528. 1
  3529. 1
  3530. 1
  3531. 1
  3532. 1
  3533. 1
  3534. 1
  3535. 1
  3536. 1
  3537. 1
  3538. 1
  3539. 1
  3540. 1
  3541. 1
  3542. 1
  3543. 1
  3544. 1
  3545. 1
  3546. 1
  3547. 1
  3548. 1
  3549. 1
  3550. 1
  3551. 1
  3552. 1
  3553. 1
  3554. 1
  3555. 1
  3556. 1
  3557. 1
  3558. 1
  3559. 1
  3560. 1
  3561. 1
  3562. 1
  3563. 1
  3564. 1
  3565. 1
  3566. 1
  3567. 1
  3568. 1
  3569. 1
  3570. 1
  3571. 1
  3572. 1
  3573. 1
  3574. 1
  3575. 1
  3576. 1
  3577. 1
  3578. 1
  3579. 1
  3580. 1
  3581. 1
  3582. 1
  3583. 1
  3584. 1
  3585. 1
  3586. 1
  3587. 1
  3588. 1
  3589. 1
  3590. 1
  3591. 1
  3592. 1
  3593. 1
  3594. 1
  3595. 1
  3596. 1
  3597. 1
  3598. 1
  3599. 1
  3600. 1
  3601. 1
  3602. 1
  3603. 1
  3604. 1
  3605. 1
  3606. 1
  3607. 1
  3608. 1
  3609. 1
  3610. 1
  3611. 1
  3612. 1
  3613. 1
  3614. 1
  3615. 1
  3616. 1
  3617. 1
  3618. 1
  3619. 1
  3620. 1
  3621. 1
  3622. 1
  3623. 1
  3624. 1
  3625. 1
  3626. 1
  3627. 1
  3628. 1
  3629. 1
  3630. I will give Musk and SpaceX their due for their accomplishments. I also realize that or ideas of his are around. HyperLoop anyone. I also think is Mars plans are an example of idiocy. Its not that l think humans will never explore Mars or utilize its resources. Provided its a deadrock. Its just the idea that it can be done with SpaceX StarShips is a problem. SpaceX has a number of hurdles to get over. And l know that StarShips have yet to achieve LEO. None of the flights so far were planned to reach orbit. The hurdles. 1) The resuablity goal. It will be a long time before spacecraft begin to approach the turnaround time that commercial aircraft have. And by approach l mean an order of magnitude. Or two orders. 2) Engine reusability. How much inspection and checkout do the Merlin engines on Falcon and Falcon Heavy require between flights. So far no Raptors have been reused unless the next flight intends to reuse anything from the booster that was caught. Setup a Raptor on a test stand and run it through repeated cycles of flight regimens. And proposed ispections inbetween flights. Test it until it breaks. Rememder the engines are also seeing stresses from the booster returning assend first at supersonic speeds. 3) Refueling on orbit. This is big deal maker or breaker. I suspect that having the vehicles mated side to side will be a problem. How are you going to transfer the fuel and oxidizer? Both of which are cryogenic. I'm not an aerospace engineer. But it seems to me once StarShip is operational it would be worthwhile to develop a pure cargo lifter version. The cargo version launches and docks to structure that can take say eight cargo versions. The structure is then spun up to provide just enough spin gravity to make pumping fuel and oxidizer easier. House the cargo versions engines in a seperate pod that can perform a balistic re-entry for reuse. 4) The Life Support System. Just how much work has SpaceX done in this field. Probably more than we realize. And there are other hurdles.
    1
  3631. 1
  3632. 1
  3633. 1
  3634. 1
  3635. 1
  3636. 1
  3637. 1
  3638. 1
  3639. 1
  3640. 1
  3641. 1
  3642. 1
  3643. 1
  3644. 1
  3645. 1
  3646. 1
  3647. 1
  3648. 1
  3649. 1
  3650. 1
  3651. 1
  3652. 1
  3653. 1
  3654. 1
  3655. 1
  3656. 1
  3657. 1
  3658. 1
  3659. 1
  3660. 1
  3661. 1
  3662. 1
  3663. 1
  3664. 1
  3665. 1
  3666. 1
  3667. 1
  3668. 1
  3669. 1
  3670. 1
  3671. 1
  3672. 1
  3673. 1
  3674. 1
  3675. 1
  3676. 1
  3677. 1
  3678. 1
  3679. 1
  3680. 1
  3681. 1
  3682. 1
  3683. 1
  3684. 1
  3685. 1
  3686. 1
  3687. 1
  3688. 1
  3689. 1
  3690. 1
  3691. 1
  3692. 1
  3693. 1
  3694. 1
  3695. 1
  3696. 1
  3697. 1
  3698. 1
  3699. 1
  3700. 1
  3701. 1
  3702. 1
  3703. 1
  3704. 1
  3705. 1
  3706. 1
  3707. 1
  3708. 1
  3709. 1
  3710. 1
  3711. 1
  3712. 1
  3713. My thoughts 1) The Graf Zeppelin would have been extremely effective at being an artificial reef. Provided she was sunk in shallow water. Given the loss rate of 109s from accidents I doubt they would last very long. A far better air group for her had she gone into service in my opinion would have been all FW-190 A4s with some possible torpedo bomber. The A4 coul have handled the dive bomber role better than the Stuka at sea. The only real problem I see with the 190 is it's relatively high wing loading iirc. Now I'll have to go back and go through Jerry's FW-190 series. 2) In terms of a cost benefit analysis the Bouge and Casablancas may have been the most effective ships built in WWII 3) The first "cruiser". Well I would consider the ACW Kearsage a cruiser. As for Battlecruisers I'll go with the Constitution. Outrun what you can't fight. Outright anything else. If we get into battle axes well that's highly subjective. 4) Building x ships instead of y ship. It's not just the hulls and dockyard space. It's the other stuff that goes into those hills. If the Kreigsmarine decided to build a bunch of destroyers instead of Bismarck and Tirpitz it would have been a better use of the steel (nothing Germany does affects the overall outcome of the war after 1941). But then you need to compete with sub production for power plants etc. 5) Carriers getting involved in a surface action. Unless they blunder into one there is no excuse for a carrier captain to allow his ship to get into a surface action with an enemy warship. Plus nobody really operated carriers all by themselves. If a carrier does get into a gun surface action with say a cruiser the two vessels early in the war up to say the end of 42 that would have had the best chance to survive would be Lexington and Saratoga given their 8" cruiser guns. Late war the Essex's might have a chance given their high rate of fire from their 5"38s. Glorious' captain if he survived should have been given a locked room and a pistol. 6) Shimano would have been a decently effective fleet carrier provided she was being used by the US Navy or the Royal Navy. The IJN simply didn't have the depth of pilot pool the US and Britian did. 7) Hydrofoils. I can see their use as missile boats possibly but as attractive as their speed capability is once radars and surface to surface or air launched surface missiles come on line they simply have no protection from these beyond dodging. Plus there operating costs at high speed I would imagine are rather high. Looking at the current Aimerica's Cup boats i am amazed just how much hull and effective sail area they can support and maintain on two foils much less the three. 8) Naval small arms. One advantage Navies have over Armies in this field is the small arms requirements for a Navy tend to be much lower in terms of the number of weapons needed. The US Navy was able to field the Lee while the US Army was still fielding Trapdoor Springfields (the US Army was not ignorant of the capability of repeating rifles, they had tested numerous trials guns). Today we see US Navy ships still carrying M14s in their arms lockers. The Goast Guard might have M16s or M4s inboard the cutters involved in drug interdiction. The Royal Navy probably still has L1A1 SLRs.
    1
  3714. 1
  3715. 1
  3716. 1
  3717. Pumped hydro is great in the right setting. In reality is nothing but a hydro electric facility were you fill it during low demand hours. But you need the right topography (and the water). In some settings it might require enclosed basins. In areas along sea coasts or even large inland bodies of water water is not an issue. I think the idea of gravity batteries has merit. And that's what pumped hydro is. A gravity battery. While the idea of massive banks of chemical batteries sounds elegant. To me it sounds like an environmental disaster from the production and recycling standpoint. Plus what would the operating life be? Myself I would rather see a brute force approach using simple technologies. Using standardized designs would allow a gravity battery employing large masses. Say 500 metric tons of sand. Doing so would mean we could build these basically on an assembly line using modular components. 500 metric tons of sand is a cube roughly 8.55 meters on a side (1). Sand is cheap (any readily available mass could used). Steel is relatively cheap. Enclose the box containing the sand in basically an elevator shaft. Group four shafts together. Install the lifting motor and generators at ground level. It makes servicing easier. The four shafts form a square say 20 meters on a side. If built in or near an urban area wrap the exterior with office space, shops or living space. This provides an extra revenue source. Is this the most efficient thing we could do. Maybe not. But what would the potential operating life of such a system be.
    1
  3718. 1
  3719. 1
  3720. 1
  3721. 1
  3722. 1
  3723. 1
  3724. 1
  3725. 1
  3726. 1
  3727. Depending on the alloy used in the receivers the heat treating process would involve heating to the Austenizing temperature (1200 to 1400 degrees F depending on the alloy if memory serves and then quenched in either water or oil). This is the temperature at which the steel undergoes a phase change and goes from a face centered cubic structure to a body centered cubic structure. What this means is the alloying elements (the Carbon, Vandium, Chrome or what ever is in the specific alloy) go from being on the faces of a cube made up of 8 iron atoms to being inside the cube of 8 iron atoms. The quenching process drives the temperature down fast enough that the steel is unable to go through the phase change back to the face centered structure. However this process also introduces stress into the structure of the steel. This were the second part of the heat treating process becomes involved. The tempering or drawing back of the steel that reduces its overall hardness but also decreases its brittleness and increases its resistance to shock loads. And this is where I suspect the heat treatment process of the steel in the receivers was flawed. The temperatures involved in the tempering process vary by alloy but often also involve bring the steel to a prescribed temperature and holding it at that temperature for a certain period of time. And then letting the steel cool slowly. Over heating the temper will make the steel too soft for the intended use. And under heating will leave the steel harder and more brittle than the specification call for. Unfortunately the Rockwell Hardness tester was not invented until well after the Springfield '03 production started which would of allowed for spotting the problem early on.
    1
  3728. 1
  3729. 1
  3730. 1
  3731. 1
  3732. 1
  3733. 1
  3734. 1
  3735. 1
  3736. 1
  3737. 1
  3738. 1
  3739. 1
  3740. 1
  3741. 1
  3742. 1
  3743. 1
  3744. 1
  3745. 1
  3746. 1
  3747. 1
  3748. 1
  3749. 1
  3750. 1
  3751. 1
  3752. 1
  3753. 1
  3754. 1
  3755. As much as l dread a nuclear war even a limited one the thing that really scares me is the use of EMPs. Just how hardened is our power grid. Our communications systems. Very few cities in the United States would have running water much less functioning potable water. And then there is the waste treatment plants. All of which require electricity to power the pumps needed. Plus the electronics that control everything would likely be fried. And then there is the transportation networks. How many cars, trucks or trains would be functional. The lucky ones would be the dead. Even without EMPs consider a "limited" nuclear war between the US and Russia. Seattle and Charleston are toast. Sub bases for boomers. How many other military bases are close to fair sized military bases. How many vital Air Force Reserve units are based at major or secondary airports. Even non combat units such as transport or refueling units are targets. Honolulu is screwed with Pearl and Hickham right next door. San Diego. The Chesapeake Bay region. That's just what i can think of for the US of the top of my head. And now for the bad news. How many nations could or will have nuclear weapons in the next ten or twenty years? IMO Iran will. Anyone who thinks they won't is delusional. The coulds. Japan. If push comes to shove they could probably have functional weapons in a year from the time they make the decision. Tiawan. They have the industrial base. They have the capability. Just making the decision could force China's hand though. Brazil. Again the industrial base. The desire. That's another matter. The EU. Even though France has nucs would the EU pursue them. They certainly have the technology base. A lot depends on if the EU holds together. Saudi Arabia. If (when imo) Iran has an arsenal its on the table. Indonesia. That I'm not sure. I'm sure there are others. The point is even in the face of sanctions and agreements North Korea got the bomb.
    1
  3756. 1
  3757. 1
  3758. 1
  3759. 1
  3760. Everybody needs to realize that EVs are the future. We may not be there yet. But it is coming. It depends on two or three things that need to happen. The first is battery cost and range. The second is charging time. The third is places to plug in. In terms of #1 there is a lot of research going on. Personally I would like to see more effort towards flywheel batteries running in vacuum vessels supported by magnetic bearings. These might beat the issue with #2. Ideally we want the ability to charge in about the same amount of time as it currently takes to fill with any hydrocarbon fuel. If we can beat #2 then #3 just might be a lot easier. Then it should be possible to convert existing gas stations to recharging stations. As it stands right now an EV is completely impractical if you live in an apartment. Being able to pull into a charging station and recharge the battery in about the same time as filling the tank eliminates the inability to charge the EV in the apartment situation. Theres also the political aspect. I can see the possibility of some locales banning ICE powered personal vehicles. I'm not saying I like the idea just that I realize it can happen. As to supplying sufficient electricity from clean sources (would you want to live next to a coal plant?). That is more a matter of political will than anything else. We could do it with renewables if we really want to. A better option IMO is modern nuclear plants using reactor vessels that can be built basically on an assembly line. There are several companies overseas that have plans to build nuclear power plants in ship yards. These are modern designs nothing like the current plants running today.
    1
  3761. 1
  3762. 1
  3763. 1
  3764. 1
  3765. 1
  3766. 1
  3767. 1
  3768. 1
  3769. 1
  3770. 1
  3771. 1
  3772. 1
  3773. 1
  3774.  @dakkadakka9189  Until that German investor stepped forward BMW would either have been bought out by Mercedes, Rover or AMC. Or gone under. Yah, AMC. Actually at the time AMC was lightyears ahead of BMW and Rover in terms of body technology. Engine technology they were a pretty average US manufacture. AMC at the time was looking for European partner for assembly to break into the European market. Producing cars that were smaller than the average American car IMO they would have been well placed to be a major factor in the European taxi market. The reason that BMW was in such deep trouble was their insistence on being upscale. Such an arrangement would have been beneficial to both parties. BMW would have benefited from production technology. AMC from BMWs engineering expertise. This would have gained BMW an established US dealer network and AMC access to the European market. Remember this was at the time that AMC was developing their aluminum block inline six". They had tested OHC versions of the 196 and would test OHC versions of the later big bore short stroke 199/232. These were rejected for further development for cost reasons. OHC engines may or may not have fewer parts. Plus they may or may not be less expensive to manufacture. "The ultimate failure of the aluminum block engine in the market place had more to do with owner neglect than poor engineering. The engine required the head to be re-torqued every 6 or 8 thousand miles due to thermal expansion issues that nobody really had a handle on at the time. Plus due to the aluminum block it required proper coolant mixes. Typically most owners never read the owner's manual.
    1
  3775. 1
  3776. 1
  3777. 1
  3778. 1
  3779. 1
  3780. 1
  3781. 1
  3782. 1
  3783. 1
  3784. 1
  3785. 1
  3786. 1
  3787. 1
  3788. 1
  3789. 1
  3790. 1
  3791. 1
  3792. 1
  3793. 1
  3794. 1
  3795. 1
  3796. 1
  3797. 1
  3798. If you're going to acquire a project car first and foremost find one with a straight and as rust free body as possible. Even for orphans there is still some NOS parts around. But the farther back you go the less there is. For some orphans the best thing is possibly to go the modified route. Especially if you can't find body panels, doors, hoods, trunk lids, glass etc. Let alone trim parts. An example would be if you find a 30 something Hupmodile coupe. Time to go street rod. 350 with a 350 trans. Mustang 2 front suspension*. A big three rear end. Then you can find mechanical parts anywhere. In terms of post war orphan brands your location might matter. Studeies might have more available in Indiana. The really prime Studebakers aside from Avanti's are going to be the Hawks. Kaiser's? I honestly have no idea. I haven't seen one in 50 years. Packard's. Good luck. Ramblers/AMC. There's more parts available but they have their oddities. Torque tube drive shafts and trunnion front ends. Even among the GM orphans there's going to be more available imo. For the really popular GM and Ford products you could practically build a completely new car from the parts available. But in the end it's what trips your trigger. It's about what you want. Not about what every body else wants. I worked with a guy who had a '37 Chevy with the standard 350/350 combo. He sold it to his nephew. The nephew pulled out the 350 and put in an Atlas 4.2 inline. When one guy asked him why his response was "any idiot can stick an LS in". Another factor is just how active local municipalities are in getting rid of salvage yards. A lot of usable parts and bodies have gone into the crushers. *for a few years there was a trend to use Pacer front ends in Street Rods. Everything mounted to the cross member. Rack and pinion steering Everything in one package.
    1
  3799. 1
  3800. 1
  3801. 1
  3802. 1
  3803. 1
  3804. Volcanic activity effects the climate in different ways. Large Stratovolcanoes, Krakatoa, Tambora, Pinatubo, Mazama etc can erupt explosively sending not only gas but ash into the upper atmosphere. Shield Volcanoes and Large Igneous Provinces, the Deccan Traps, the Siberian Traps, the Columbia River Basalts, Iceland, the North Atlantic Igneous Province, Kerguelan Plateau, Ontong-Jave Plateau and others over time do not erupt explosively as a general rule. There are exceptions. A major explosive eruption on Iceland in the late 1700s is one. In general a large explosive eruption results in a cooling period. This can be a year or two with minor cooling. In the case of an extremely large explosive eruption such as Toba or Yellowstone the effects can last decades. Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs) erupt in the form of flood basalts. These affect the climate differently. They expel large volumes of CO2, H2O and other gases. These gases will increase CO2 to much higher levels than today. 2000 ppm or higher. During the Miocene palm trees flourished in the Arctic. The whole of Earth had a tropical to sub-tropical climate. At this time there was a LIP in the Pacific Ocean that was sitting on a spreading center between the Fallaron and the now abducted Kula Plate. This LIP, called Siletzia , was formed by the Hot Spot currently under Yellowstone. Siletzia was active during the Miocene. This LIP was eventually over run by the North American Plate as an exotic terrane. It forms part of the Olympic Penisula of Washington. The Ontong-Java Plateau associated with the Louisville Hot Spot was active 120MYA with addition activity 90MYA. The Louisville Hot Spot is located approximately 140D West, 50D South. The Ontung-Java Plateau is currently in the area of 160D East, 5D North having moved East 60D and 55D North in the past 120MY. All of these LIPs can probably be related to periods of warm climate and the largest to extinction events.
    1
  3805. 1
  3806. 1
  3807. 1
  3808. 1
  3809. 1
  3810. 1
  3811. 1
  3812. 1
  3813. 1
  3814. 1
  3815. 1
  3816. 1
  3817. 1
  3818. 1
  3819. 1
  3820. 1
  3821. 1
  3822. 1
  3823. 1
  3824. 1
  3825. 1
  3826. 1
  3827. 1
  3828. 1
  3829. 1
  3830. 1
  3831. 1
  3832. 1
  3833. A mill is always better than a drill press. Inch versus metric. What ever floats your boat. Just be consistent. Limitations of drill presses vs mills 1) Bearings. A Drill Press is designed to take axial loads. A mill is designed to take axial and radial loads. 2) Table size. This is a major problem. Most drill presses have far too small of a table. One reason auxiliary tables are so popular. 3) Positioning the work. Unless you are using accurate positioning systems. It all comes down to good layout and eyesight. 4) Speed Control. Very few drill presses have variable speed. Belts are PITA on most drill presses to get the speed you want and the pulleys are small. With cheap belts difficult to get proper belt tension. 5) Table stability. A lot of floor and bench top drill presses secure the table with one screw about which the table rotates. Drill press srengths 1) Floor Space. They do not take up a lot if room. But do require room to the side. 2) The ability to swing the head or table around the column. This means you build a vertical workholding system for drilling into the end of long work. 3) The ability to change chucks. This requires a spindle with an internal morse taper. Also allows the use of other Morse Taper tooling. All that said l have one of the best imo benchtop drill presses ever sold. Variable speed 500 to 3000 rpm. Solid base with a tilting table. The table isn't the best but it fairly large. Conventional and dial type depth stop. It lacks a Morse Taper but l changed out the chuck to a decent quality keyless. The big down side is they do not make them anymore. Ryobi WDP 1850, don't laugh. Really deep throat capacity for a bench top. This was accomplished by putting the motor between the column and the spindle. Unfortunately they did not sell well. Price most likely. When it was dropped they destroyed the tooling. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://woodgears.ca/drillpress/ryobi.html&ved=2ahUKEwi3kerD94CCAxVgADQIHerZBFMQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3pJHN9EnWNrU6OYhjrOOpy
    1
  3834. 1
  3835. 1
  3836. 1
  3837. 1
  3838. 1
  3839. 1
  3840. 1
  3841. 1
  3842. 1
  3843. 1
  3844. 1
  3845. 1
  3846. 1
  3847. 1
  3848. 1
  3849. 1
  3850. 1
  3851. 1
  3852. 1
  3853. 1
  3854. 1
  3855. 1
  3856. 1
  3857. 1
  3858. 1
  3859. 1
  3860. 1
  3861. 1
  3862. 1
  3863. 1
  3864. 1
  3865. 1
  3866. 1
  3867. 1
  3868. 1
  3869. 1
  3870. 1
  3871. 1
  3872. 1
  3873. 1
  3874. 1
  3875. 1
  3876. 1
  3877. 1
  3878. 1
  3879. 1
  3880. 1
  3881. 1
  3882. 1
  3883. 1
  3884. 1
  3885. 1
  3886. 1
  3887. 1
  3888. Nice idea, but it will never happen without a revolution. The problem with revolutions is generally they get hijacked. Taxes. If an income tax is necessary make a simple flat tax. There are two ways to do it. A single percentage that everybody pays. Or a system where from 0 to X you pay no taxes. X to Y say 5%. Y to Z say 8%. Above Z 10%. And you do not have to pay on previously earned income when you move up to a higher bracket. And there are no personal deductions. Period. Businesses are a different matter. It's not just income taxes people pay. Its excise taxes on gas, tires etc. Its State, County and sometimes City Sales taxes. Go on vacation and you'll pay an extra room tax and possibly extra taxes on food. One could argue that at least they're fair in that you used it. One thing that would lessen regulation and make it easier on business is to reduce the number of fuel blends the EPA mandates for cars that burn gasoline. Summer blends, winter blends. Region A gets a different blend than B. Either outlaw government worker unions or eliminate any say they have in firing and hiring. There are areas where government oversight may need to be increased or maintain the same level. Clean water for one. Sewage districts for another. Air quality. Personally I'm in favor of banning coal burning power plants after a certain date. But I'm also in favor of increased government sponsored research into fusion power. I'm not talking about the money pit in France the Dept of Energy is involved in. I'm talking about some of the start-ups that are looking at alternatives to the extremely large projects. Building a reactor that can achieve fusion is actually pretty easy. People have done it in their basements. Getting usable power out is something else. One thing that goes along with fusion research is materials research especially high temp superconductors. Increased medical research that focuses on improved public health.
    1
  3889. 1
  3890. 1
  3891. 1
  3892. 1
  3893. 1
  3894. 1
  3895. 1
  3896. 1
  3897. 1
  3898. 1
  3899. 1
  3900. 1
  3901. 1
  3902. 1
  3903. 1
  3904. 1
  3905. 1
  3906. 1
  3907. 1
  3908. 1
  3909. 1
  3910. 1
  3911. 1
  3912. 1
  3913. 1
  3914. 1
  3915. 1
  3916. 1
  3917. 1
  3918. 1
  3919. 1
  3920. 1
  3921. 1
  3922. 1
  3923. 1
  3924. 1
  3925. 1
  3926. 1
  3927. 1
  3928. 1
  3929. 1
  3930. 1
  3931. 1
  3932. I live there. The overwhelming majority of individuals that were arrested for violence in the Kenosha riots were not residents. When I first saw the video of when Jacob Blake was shot my first reaction was "oh shit". Then there were reports that he had merely been trying to break up a fight at a neighborhood block party. This was reported by the media. No. Mr Blake's girlfriend called 911 because there was a restraint order on file against him. Plus the Kenosha County DAs office had filed charges against Mr Blake and there was a warrant issued for his arrest on Third Degree Sexual Assault. That is why the Police where there. They attempted to arrest Mr Blake (1) and Mr Blake resisted arrest. Does this mean that he should have been shot seven times in the back. IMO the officer in question was at least guilty of excessive force. Why were there seven shots fired. I think that has to do with the equipping police officers with semi-automatic pistols. When police departments carried revolers I doubt they had issues with officers when they did have to fire a weapon firing more than two or three rounds. For those unfamiliar with firearms a revolver, even if it is a double action, takes significantly more physical effort. A semiauto the process of ejecting the fired round loads the next round into the chamber and cocks the hammer. All it takes to fire that round is squeezing the trigger. When the police department in Kenosha first looked into switching over from .38 caliber revolvers (2) to semiautos a lot of police agencies were adopting high capacity 9mms. My brother in law was in charge of the procurement process. Kenosha specifically choose to adopt .45 ACP. Because data showed that 9mm caused significant over penetration and increased the likelihood that a bullet could carry on down range to posdibly go through the wall of house. Or a car door. Or another person. Plus looking at the data on how many rounds an officer fired when they did have to employ their service weapon the data showed the average number of rounds fired was 2 or 3. Well with in the range of a 7 or 8 round capacity of a pistol chambered in .45 ACP. 1) When Mr Blake was interviewed by Don Lemon on CNN he stated that he had to accept his responsibility for the events of that day. Plus he admitted that has was carrying a knife and it was in his hand. 2) Officers were allowed to carry personal side arms and some did. Amongst those who did some carried revolvers chambered in .357 Magnum. But they were restricted to using .38 Special ammunition. A .357 will fire .38s and .357 rounds. The difference between the two rounds is the length of the case (4 or 5 mm) and the amount of propellant used. .38 Special and .357 are basically 9mm in diameter. 9mm equals .354.
    1
  3933. 1
  3934. 1
  3935. 1
  3936. 1
  3937. 1
  3938. 1
  3939. 1
  3940. 1
  3941. 1
  3942. 1
  3943. 1
  3944. 1
  3945. 1
  3946. 1
  3947. 1
  3948. 1
  3949. 1
  3950. 1
  3951. 1
  3952. 1
  3953. 1
  3954. 1
  3955. 1
  3956. 1
  3957. 1
  3958. 1
  3959. 1
  3960. 1
  3961. 1
  3962. 1
  3963. 1
  3964. 1
  3965. 1
  3966. 1
  3967. 1
  3968. 1
  3969. 1
  3970. 1
  3971. 1
  3972. 1
  3973. 1
  3974. 1
  3975. 1
  3976. 1
  3977. 1
  3978. 1
  3979. 1
  3980. 1
  3981. 1
  3982. 1
  3983. 1
  3984. 1
  3985. Please don't shoot the car Uncle Tony. We've already had enough riots and unrest. Oh, you mean you're going to paint it. Never mind, carry on The Dart with the 170. If you started to baby it you'd probably blow the motor or transmission. I ran across something interesting when watching a video about Newcomer Racing build a 4.0 stroker motor. In Argentina there's a long running racing series that at one time was using Chevy, Ford, Dodge and Kaiser* inline sixes. These were all getting long in the tooth so they had a new DOHC head developed for the different motors to fit Ford, Chevy and the AMC/Jeep 4.0 blocks. Different casting but the same combustion chamber design I think. All the motors have a valve cover that looks basically the same. The thumb nail on the first video shows one of the engines on an assembly stand. The block sure looks like a 4.0. The second video is one of the engines running. Output is around d 500 hp The 4.0 was homogolated for use in Dodge and Torino models. The Torino is actually a reworked Rambler American/Classic hybrid with new front sheet metal designed by Pinifarina. *The Kaiser inline six is the Tornado 230 CID undersquare SOHC six that Kaiser developed in the early 60s. It has a cross flow head with hemispherical combustion chambers. The cam is weird. The same lobe operates the intake and exhaust valves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKA-Renault_Torino https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=pedersoli+y+el+nueva+motor&docid=608052294253807256&mid=A3B333AF6CCF91B35831A3B333AF6CCF91B35831&view=detail&FORM=VIRE https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=en+el+aire+sports&&view=detail&mid=95637A1512C8C1354F2895637A1512C8C1354F28&&FORM=VRDGAR
    1
  3986. 1
  3987. 1
  3988. 1
  3989. 1
  3990. 1
  3991. 1
  3992. 1
  3993. I plan to but l fear it will only delay the fall of not only the US but the West in general. The Long March Through the Institutions has closed in on its goal. Starting in academia it spread institution to institution. Department to Department. Field of study to field of study. Starting in the humanities it has now begun to capture the STEM fields. How many millions of graduates have already been poisoned. How many more will graduate just this year with minds that are poisoned. It is not a liberal vs conservative narrative. It is literally a poison that teaches them to hate everything in their culture. Its traditions, its music, its food, its literature, its spiritual values, everything. And these people are not going away. The only thing that will wake them up is a hard dose of reality. And that hard dose is likely going to be a severe economic downturn. What's in the future? One thing l fear is dictatorship from the Left. Far too many young people today are not only willing but eager to give Socialism or worse Communism a chance. The one thing Socialist or Communist societies are good at is making almost everyone economically equal (1). Equally poor. And they are also equally good at becoming police states. How do we fix things? A big part of the problem is the few getting richer while everyone else stagnates or slips. Real wages adjusted for inflation haven't gone up for far too many Americans. Plus in the last 30 or 40 years far too many jobs that could support a family have disappeared. Maybe not all of those jobs could support a family in style. But they put food on the table. I'm not saying all of those jobs could have been saved. A lot of those jobs were lost for various reasons. Companies that couldn't compete or adapt to the market always go under. Some employees bargained their way out of being competitive. I'm thinking about the UAW mainly. But their industry's problems are equally shared by management. Poor product decisions mainly. Some other industries have been done wrong by their own government. The US used to have the largest machine tool industry in the world. Then the Federal government allowed foreign manufacturers to warehouse new machines in US ports prior to going through customs. A Japanese manufacturer could deliver a new CNC or manual machine tool from stock. In a minimum amount of time. The equipment only went through customs when shipped. With no inventory taxes paid while the machines sat in the warehouse. Meanwhile US manufacturers had to pay inventory taxes on everything. Any completed machines, spare parts, unfinished machinery and of course their facilities. Almost all of these companies are gone now. Or a mere shadow of themselves. And that is just one industry. And the machine tool industry is the bedrock on which any manufacturing enterprise is built.
    1
  3994. 1
  3995. 1
  3996. 1
  3997. 1
  3998. 1
  3999. 1
  4000. 1
  4001. 1
  4002. 1
  4003. 1
  4004. 1
  4005. 1
  4006. 1
  4007. 1
  4008. 1
  4009. 1
  4010. 1
  4011. 1
  4012. 1
  4013. 1
  4014. 1
  4015. 1
  4016. 1
  4017. 1
  4018. 1
  4019. 1
  4020. 1
  4021. 1
  4022. 1
  4023. 1
  4024. 1
  4025. 1
  4026. 1
  4027. 1
  4028. 1
  4029. 1
  4030. 1
  4031. 1
  4032. 1
  4033. 1
  4034. 1
  4035. 1
  4036. 1
  4037. 1
  4038. 1
  4039. 1
  4040. 1
  4041. 1
  4042. 1
  4043. 1
  4044. 1
  4045. 1
  4046. 1
  4047. 1
  4048. 1
  4049. 1
  4050. 1
  4051. 1
  4052. 1
  4053. 1
  4054. 1
  4055. 1
  4056. 1
  4057. 1
  4058. 1
  4059. 1
  4060. 1
  4061. 1
  4062. 1
  4063. 1
  4064. 1
  4065. 1
  4066. 1
  4067. 1
  4068. 1
  4069. 1
  4070. 1
  4071. 1
  4072. 1
  4073. 1
  4074. 1
  4075. 1
  4076. 1
  4077. 1
  4078. 1
  4079. 1
  4080. 1
  4081. 1
  4082. 1
  4083. 1
  4084. 1
  4085. 1
  4086. 1
  4087. 1
  4088. 1
  4089. 1
  4090. 1
  4091. 1
  4092. 1
  4093. 1
  4094. 1
  4095. 1
  4096. 1
  4097. 1
  4098. 1
  4099. 1
  4100. 1
  4101. 1
  4102. 1
  4103. 1
  4104. 1
  4105. 1
  4106. 1
  4107. 1
  4108. 1
  4109. 1
  4110. 1
  4111. No one with any sense believes any of the conspiracy theories that got hung on C-19. This is one nasty bug. But there is one question I have tried to find an answer for. Given a death rate 8.2 per 1000 people per year and a population of 330M (that's the number I got from the census bureau) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Census Actually the projected figure +334M. At 8.2 per 1000 that comes out to 7500 deaths per day from all causes. New York City's population projected at 20.169M. https://uspopulation2020.com/population-of-new-york-2020-population-growth-demography-facts.html This works out to an average of 453 deaths per day. Is the death toll we are seeing attributable to C-19 added on top of the deaths from other causes. The current US total of 22000. If we put the first death at March 1st for sake of arguement then we are looking at 511 per day. Is this on top of the 7500 per day average. How many of these deaths are people who would likely have died from other causes. I am not being a heartless SOB here. I'm simply asking a question as to what the real numbers of deaths per day is. I suspect some causes are way down. Motor vehicle accidents. Hopefully the murder rate is down. Although I understand domestic violence is up. Are there less people dieing of other infectious diseases such as influenza because of social distancing and other practices. Are all deaths that are attributed to C-19 actually have that as the primary cause. Or are we seeing a case of they tested positive so C-19 is the cause. I strongly think there is going to be very thorough statistical study done in the future. In fact I know it. And yes this bug is going to be back this winter. Whether it comes back from a small pool of infected individuals here in the US or from outside the country. Hopefully everybody will be better prepared come October. And it will also pop back up in Europe, Asia after the Southern hemisphere's turn. After things settle down we may well see some restrictions on air travel. I also think we are going to see countries or regions looking to be more self reliant on their own sources of medical equipment and prescription drugs if possible. That and either expanding national stockpiles or creating one to start with. The US used to have surplus food stocked as it was used in the commodities program. How much they keep on hand I don't know. But this is something that needs to be looked at. In all countries. I also think the days of open borders are over at least for awhile.
    1
  4112. 1
  4113. 1
  4114. 1
  4115. 1
  4116. 1
  4117. 1
  4118. 1
  4119. 1
  4120. 1
  4121. 1
  4122. 1
  4123. 1
  4124. 1
  4125. 1
  4126. 1
  4127. 1
  4128. 1
  4129. 1
  4130. 1
  4131. 1
  4132. 1
  4133. 1
  4134. 1
  4135. 1
  4136. 1
  4137. 1
  4138. 1
  4139. 1
  4140. 1
  4141. 1
  4142. 1
  4143. 1
  4144. 1
  4145. 1
  4146. 1
  4147. 1
  4148. 1
  4149. 1
  4150. 1
  4151. 1
  4152. 1
  4153. 1
  4154. 1
  4155. 1
  4156. 1
  4157. 1
  4158. 1
  4159. 1
  4160. 1
  4161. 1
  4162. 1
  4163. 1
  4164. 1
  4165. 1
  4166. 1
  4167. 1
  4168. 1
  4169. 1
  4170. 1
  4171. 1
  4172. 1
  4173. 1
  4174. 1
  4175. 1
  4176. 1
  4177. 1
  4178. 1
  4179. 1
  4180. 1
  4181. 1
  4182. 1
  4183. 1
  4184. 1
  4185. 1
  4186. 1
  4187. 1
  4188. 1
  4189. 1
  4190. 1
  4191. 1
  4192. 1
  4193. 1
  4194. 1
  4195. 1
  4196. 1
  4197. 1
  4198. 1
  4199. 1
  4200. 1
  4201. 1
  4202. 1
  4203. 1
  4204. 1
  4205. 1
  4206. 1
  4207. 1
  4208. 1
  4209. 1
  4210. 1
  4211. 1
  4212. 1
  4213. 1
  4214. 1
  4215. 1
  4216. 1
  4217. 1
  4218. 1
  4219. 1
  4220. 1
  4221. 1
  4222. 1
  4223. 1
  4224. 1
  4225. 1
  4226. 1
  4227. 1
  4228. 1
  4229. 1
  4230. 1
  4231. Given the low cost of precision measuring tools compared to the past if somebody does a lot of engine work it will really pay to equip yourself with at least a dial bore gage and micrometers appropriate to the work your doing. During my working life I had to do inspection work of machine components during the course of repairs. When checking bores these would be checked at least in 4 directions. Vertically, horizontally and at 45° to those two. The total variation gave me a good enough reading for an out of round condition. And for setting the dial bore gage with a micrometer get some plastic tubing to slip over the micrometer's anvil and spindle. This will keep the dial bore gage from slipping of off of the anvils while trying to set zero. Another way is use a ring that matches the print bore size. The other measuring option is a set of telescope gages. Preferably with long handles. Regular telescoping gages can be extended by using rigid tubing.But when checking bores for out of round, oversize or barreled condition it is important to keep accurate records. As to checking if the bores are actually on center in relationship to the crank centerline that takes far more advanced equipment. When manufactured the bores on this engine were actually located off of the two .750" holes in the pan rail. In fact every single feature on these blocks (1) besides the first three operations were located in relation to the two main manufacturing holes and the pan rail. 1) The same can likely be said for just about every other engine built.
    1
  4232. 1
  4233. 1
  4234. 1
  4235. 1
  4236. 1
  4237. 1
  4238. 1
  4239. 1
  4240. 1
  4241. 1
  4242. 1
  4243. 1
  4244. 1
  4245. 1
  4246. 1
  4247. 1
  4248. 1
  4249. 1
  4250. 1
  4251. 1
  4252. 1
  4253. 1
  4254. 1
  4255. 1
  4256. 1
  4257. 1
  4258. 1
  4259. 1
  4260. 1
  4261. 1
  4262. 1
  4263. 1
  4264. 1
  4265. One problem with trying to assure that people have a chance in life to succeed. The SJWs will push for equality of outcome. Everyone in our society should have a chance to thrive. But you cannot ensure everyone will. Bret talks about economic development in the inner cities. It would need to be meaningful opportunity. Bret talks about the lack of jobs for Phds. What would one expect when the education industry has been pitching the mantra that everybody should go to college. Not everyone is prepared for college or intellectually suited for college. And that's where the meaningful opportunity comes in. One place this country needs massive investment is in its infrastructure. Roads, bridges, sanitation systems, water etc*. To find the money it's either going to have to come from raising taxes or shuffling the budget around. Some of the money can come from social programs that rather than simply support people give people something useful to do they can take pride in. The rest will have to come out of the defense budget. Is there really any need to have ground troops stationed in Europe and Korea anymore. I can see maintaining a certain level of naval and Air Force basing overseas. But where the defense establishment is severely out of wack is the procurement system. Just how long has the JSF been under development and how much work still needs to be done to make as effective as it needs to be. We are buying two different designs of LCS ships for the Navy. Partly to replace Perry Class Frigates that are getting worn out. Neither the Independence or Freedom class can really sail in harm's way if needed. Maybe the Coast Guard could use them. The Army is currently looking at replacing the M4/M16 with a weapon that fires a larger caliber round. The AR series of rifles that the M16 is derived from will handle up to 7.62 NATO. Why not simply upgrade existing systems. The military isn't the only place were procurement is out of wack. NASA in some ways is a good example. Just how long has the SLS launch system been under development. Some of this isn't the Agency's fault. NASA gets treated as a political football with mission objectives changing with every new administration and constant meddling by Congress. A while back Congress budgeted for a production run of new C-130-J transports. Which the Air Force did not want because it diverted funds from other programs they considered more vital. The same thing has happened with the Army and M-1 tanks. In some ways buying small numbers of aircraft from Boeing, Lockheed etc. Engines from GE. Having General Dynamics build small numbers of or upgrading M-1 tanks in service or storage makes sense to a degree. Keeping the skill sets involved in this type of work is cheaper than starting over from square one. But such programs are not supposed to be cash cows for the contractors or the Congresscritters and their districts. And it cant just be government initiatives. As a nation we will need major corporations to step up. Bring production of some goods and services back from off shore. It may mean that we pay a slightly higher prices. But I have a very difficult time believing Nike for one cannot make a profit on a pair of a Air Jordans made here. *Public infrastructure always seems to be built to the lowest possible cost and standard. Our highways wear out much faster than they should. I for one would rather see more money spent up front if the finished product lasts at least twice as long.
    1
  4266. 1
  4267. 1
  4268. 1
  4269. 1
  4270. 1
  4271. 1
  4272. 1
  4273. 1
  4274. 1
  4275. 1
  4276. 1
  4277. 1
  4278. 1
  4279. 1
  4280. 1
  4281. 1
  4282. 1
  4283. 1
  4284. 1
  4285. 1
  4286. 1
  4287. 1
  4288. 1
  4289. 1
  4290. 1
  4291. 1
  4292. 1
  4293. 1
  4294. 1
  4295. 1
  4296. 1
  4297. 1
  4298. 1
  4299. 1
  4300. 1
  4301. 1
  4302. 1
  4303. 1
  4304. 1
  4305. 1
  4306. 1
  4307. 1
  4308. 1
  4309. 1
  4310. 1
  4311. 1
  4312. 1
  4313. 1
  4314. 1
  4315. 1
  4316. 1
  4317. 1
  4318. 1
  4319. 1
  4320. 1
  4321. 1
  4322. 1
  4323. 1
  4324. 1
  4325. 1
  4326. 1
  4327. 1
  4328. When it comes to Bismarck and Titanic l think they have one thing in common. Hubris pure and simple. Their builders certainly knew the ships could be sunk. Put a big enough hole in anything and will sink. As to where the hubris comes from in Titanic's the obvious place to look is the White Star Line in terms of some of the things their PR staff put out. Another place is in the preformance of the White Star Lines ships officers. In Bismarck's case I would point to the German government. And to a certain extent I would put Vasa and Mary Rose into the same circumstances. While ships do get lost due to circumstances beyond any one's control. Often there are also underlaying human causes. One case of a ships loss to human error was the Edmund Fitzgerald on Lake Superior in 1975. When the wreck was found the following spring the securing clamps on the cargo hatches were largely intact. Every fourth on though was broken from when the hatches blow off. The ship left port on a Sunday and the captain was supposed to be tight as to paying overtime. and only had the crew lock down one in four of the hatch cover clamps. He supposedly intended the rest of the clamps to be set the following morning. But the weather had turned so bad that the crew could not work on deck. to show just how bad the weather change was when the Fitz left Superior the weather was extremely mild. Sunny skies, light winds and approximately 70 DF/21C. By Monday morning the temperature had fallen to 32F/0C or lower with gale force winds. With the seas washing over the deck. See The Mighty Fitz by Michael Schumacher. No, not that Michael Schumacher. He's a friend and he was doing a book tour in Germany and Austria and when he was checking into his hotel in Vienna the hotel staff was anticipating the other one. He says they were sadly disappointed.
    1
  4329. 1
  4330. 1
  4331. 1
  4332. 1
  4333. 1
  4334. 1
  4335. 1
  4336. 1
  4337. 1
  4338. 1
  4339. 1
  4340. 1
  4341. 1
  4342. 1
  4343. 1
  4344. 1
  4345. 1
  4346. 1
  4347. 1
  4348. 1
  4349. 1
  4350. 1
  4351. 1
  4352. 1
  4353. 1
  4354. 1
  4355. 1
  4356. 1
  4357. 1
  4358. 1
  4359. 1
  4360. 1
  4361. 1
  4362. 1
  4363. 1
  4364. 1
  4365. 1
  4366. 1
  4367. 1
  4368. 1
  4369. 1
  4370. 1
  4371. 1
  4372. 1
  4373. 1
  4374. 1
  4375. 1
  4376. 1
  4377. 1
  4378. 1
  4379. 1
  4380. 1
  4381. 1
  4382. 1
  4383. 1
  4384. 1
  4385. 1
  4386. 1
  4387. 1
  4388. 1
  4389. 1
  4390. 1
  4391. 1
  4392. 1
  4393. 1
  4394. 1
  4395. 1
  4396. 1
  4397. 1
  4398. 1
  4399. 1
  4400. 1
  4401. 1
  4402. 1
  4403. 1
  4404. 1
  4405. 1
  4406. 1
  4407. 1
  4408. 1
  4409. 1
  4410. 1
  4411. 1
  4412. 1
  4413. 1
  4414. 1
  4415. 1
  4416. 1
  4417. 1
  4418. 1
  4419. 1
  4420. 1
  4421. 1
  4422. 1
  4423. 1
  4424. 1
  4425. 1
  4426. 1
  4427. 1
  4428. 1
  4429. 1
  4430. 1
  4431. 1
  4432. 1
  4433. 1
  4434. 1
  4435. 1
  4436. 1
  4437. 1
  4438. 1
  4439. 1
  4440. 1
  4441. 1
  4442. 1
  4443. 1
  4444. 1
  4445. 1
  4446. 1
  4447. 1
  4448. 1
  4449. 1
  4450. 1
  4451. 1
  4452. 1
  4453. 1
  4454. 1
  4455. 1
  4456. 1
  4457. 1
  4458. 1
  4459. 1
  4460. 1
  4461. 1
  4462. 1
  4463. 1
  4464. 1
  4465. 1
  4466. 1
  4467. 1
  4468. 1
  4469. 1
  4470. 1
  4471. 1
  4472. 1
  4473. 1
  4474. 1
  4475. 1
  4476. 1
  4477. 1
  4478. 1
  4479. 1
  4480. 1
  4481. 1
  4482. 1
  4483. 1
  4484. 1
  4485. 1
  4486. 1
  4487. 1
  4488. 1
  4489. 1
  4490. 1
  4491. 1
  4492. 1
  4493. 1
  4494. 1
  4495. 1
  4496. 1
  4497. 1
  4498. 1
  4499. 1
  4500. 1
  4501. 1
  4502. 1
  4503. 1
  4504. 1
  4505. 1
  4506. I had a 2000 Grand Caravan* and currently have a 2011 Town & Country. Given my current situation having a modest sized house and yard by todays standards in the US. And having substantial spring, summer and fall** yard and gardening work. Along with hauling lumber etc. I find the minivan to be just about the most useful type of vehicle I have ever owned. Both are capable of respectable mileage on the highway. They were and still are the replacement for the station wagon. And I've had three small station wagons. Each had they're quirks. The Caravans middle and/or rear seats lived in the garage most of the time. The T&C the rear seat is normally down and folding the middle seats into their storage wells is kind of a pain. But both would and do take a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood, drywall, foam insulation etc with the seats out of the way *Grand simply because it had a longer wheel base. **My local municipalicy does do curb side yard waste pickup in the spring and fall. But only in approved biobags. However with seven large mature trees that's a problem. And they do not suck up leaves in the fall. The city composts or chips all yard waste. Free compost and wood chips to residents. Plus they sell the excess commercially. And the city uses a lot in it's own ornamental flower beds. It may also supply compost to local community gardens. EPA regs do not allow compost made with material sucked up from streets to be sold commercially. The cities waste treatment plant (state of the art) does sell its dried sludge to commercial operations.
    1
  4507. 1
  4508. 1
  4509. 1
  4510. 1
  4511. 1
  4512. 1
  4513. 1
  4514. 1
  4515. 1
  4516. 1
  4517. 1
  4518. 1
  4519. 1
  4520. 1
  4521. 1
  4522. 1
  4523. In the era between the Norse abandonment of Vinland* and Columbus's 1st voyage the complete absence of Europeans is somewhat of an open question. The Norse** settlers on Greenland certainly would have been crossing the Davis Strait to Labrador for timber. By the 1480s if not earlier fishing fleets from Bristol and probably the Basque region of Spain were fishing on the Grand Banks. That they may have had temporary encampments, bases whatever on Nova Scotia is likely. It is also likely that the odd European or North African vessel wound up in the Caribean or Atlantic seaboard due to weather. If they got home that's another story. Concerning indeginous permanent settlements on the Atlantic Seaboard all of the early Pilgrim or Puritain settlements were on the sites of former Native settlements that had been essentially wiped out due to one epidemic or another. By the 1600s the natives had over a century of dealing with Europeans and while they were willing to trade the preferred to keep them at arms length. As a side note one early explorer (Vespucci iirc) was exploring around present day Rhode Island he had Native guests aboard his ship. Some of whom were wearing Venitian glass and one had a broken Vinetian sword. Maybe from a lost ship or explorers who never got home. Plus by the 1600s some of the ships trading along the Atlantic Coast were crewed entirely by natives. * by Vinland I mean in the general sense of any settlements in North America. I doubt the the found on the Northern tip of Newfoundland was the only one. ** Norse and not Viking. The term Viking is related more to an activity than a specific people.
    1
  4524. 1
  4525. 1
  4526. 1
  4527. 1
  4528. 1
  4529. 1
  4530. 1
  4531. 1
  4532. 1
  4533. 1
  4534. 1
  4535. 1
  4536. 1
  4537. 1
  4538. 1
  4539. 1
  4540. 1
  4541. 1
  4542. 1
  4543. 1
  4544. 1
  4545. 1
  4546. 1
  4547. 1
  4548. 1
  4549. 1
  4550. 1
  4551. 1
  4552. 1
  4553. 1
  4554. 1
  4555. 1
  4556. 1
  4557. 1
  4558. 1
  4559. 1
  4560. 1
  4561. 1
  4562. 1
  4563. 1
  4564. 1
  4565. 1
  4566. 1
  4567. 1
  4568. 1
  4569. 1
  4570. 1
  4571. 1
  4572. 1
  4573. 1
  4574. 1
  4575. 1
  4576. 1
  4577. 1
  4578. 1
  4579. 1
  4580. 1
  4581. 1
  4582. 1
  4583. 1
  4584. There are things the US did wrong with nuclear power and things the French did right. The US did not really use standardized designs (1). The French did. As I understand it they have a Generation 1 design and a Generation 2 design. If you have an issue design wise you know what to look for in other facilities. This also lowers costs. Also l wonder if the individual regions, departments or whatever the French call them along with municipalities have as much legal power to throw up roadblocks to construction. One reason that nuclear plants in the US cost as much as they do is every Tom, Dick and Harry can file legal challenges, endlessly it seems. Delaying construction and causing increased costs due interest on the loans. Nuclear produces cheap reliable power as far as the operating side goes. It's the long lead time that builds the costs. Another thing that increases costs is the incredible amount of paper work involved in everything. Simply replacing one screw and nut on pipe fitting requires multiple forms (2). There is also the waste side of things. Most nuclear waste is low level stuff such as personal protective gear. The actual waste from the fuel in the US would fit into an Olympic sized swimming pool. We used to reprocess waste. Carter stopped that by Executive Order. EOs can be reversed by EOs. The spent fuel rods out of a nuclear facility actually contain very high levels of usable fuel that can be recovered. In the 1990s the US DOE actually ran a small test reactor to look into using the high level waste to produce power and consume that waste by converting it into lower level waste. The Vlinton Administration killed that. 1) The Soviets. I'm not sure they did anything right with nuclear plants 2) I worked with several people (plant maintenance) and knew others that worked at a Commonwealth Edison plant in Illinois. Even the plant security department had forms up the ying yang
    1
  4585. 1
  4586. 1
  4587. 1
  4588. 1
  4589. 1
  4590. 1
  4591. 1
  4592. 1
  4593. 1
  4594. 1
  4595. 1
  4596. 1
  4597. 1
  4598. 1
  4599. 1
  4600. 1
  4601. 1
  4602. 1
  4603. 1
  4604. 1
  4605. 1
  4606. 1
  4607. 1
  4608. 1
  4609. 1
  4610. 1
  4611. 1
  4612. 1
  4613. 1
  4614. 1
  4615. 1
  4616. 1
  4617. 1
  4618. 1
  4619. 1
  4620. 1
  4621. 1
  4622. 1
  4623. 1
  4624. 1
  4625. 1
  4626. 1
  4627. 1
  4628. 1
  4629. 1
  4630. 1
  4631. 1
  4632. 1
  4633. 1
  4634. 1
  4635. 1
  4636. 1
  4637. 1
  4638. 1
  4639. 1
  4640. 1
  4641. 1
  4642. 1
  4643. 1
  4644. 1
  4645. 1
  4646. 1
  4647. 1
  4648. 1
  4649. 1
  4650. 1
  4651. 1
  4652.  @Whoishere2333  When the incident involving Jacob Blake happened a major problem was the spread of false information concerning why the police were there (1) and the video shot by someone from across the street in their apartment was edited to not show the events just before the shots being fired. City and county officials knew the information that was being reported by the media was wrong but did little to counter it. I am not saying the shooting was justified (2). I am saying that social media is a tool that can cause a great deal of harm. 1) The police were there because Mr Blake's girlfriend had a protection order requiring him not to be in her presence. She called 911. There was also an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr Blake for a charge of 3rd Degree Sexual Assault. The officers were there in response to the 911 call and to execute the warrant. 2) I think the number of shots fired comes down to a couple of things. First is adrenaline. Second is the type of weapon. A double action revolver generally takes more effort to fire each round than a semiauto pistol. The officers were armed with semiauto pistols. Officers in Kenosha had not been armed with Revolvers for close to 30 years at the time. And when they carried Revolvers they were limited to issue .38 Special Revolvers or they were allowed to carry .38 Special or .357 Revolvers they had purchased themselves but were only allowed standard .38 Special ammunition. A .357 will chamber both .38 Special and .357 ammunition. The difference is the in the case length and powder charge.
    1
  4653. 1
  4654. 1
  4655. 1
  4656. 1
  4657. 1
  4658. 1
  4659. 1
  4660. 1
  4661. 1
  4662. 1
  4663. 1
  4664. 1
  4665. 1
  4666. 1
  4667. 1
  4668. 1
  4669. 1
  4670. 1
  4671. 1
  4672. 1
  4673. 1
  4674. 1
  4675. 1
  4676. 1
  4677. 1
  4678. 1
  4679. 1
  4680. 1
  4681. 1
  4682. 1
  4683. 1
  4684. 1
  4685. 1
  4686. 1
  4687. 1
  4688. 1
  4689. 1
  4690. 1
  4691. 1
  4692. 1
  4693. 1
  4694. 1
  4695. 1
  4696. 1
  4697. 1
  4698. 1
  4699. 1
  4700. 1
  4701. 1
  4702. 1
  4703. 1
  4704. 1
  4705. 1
  4706. 1
  4707. 1
  4708. 1
  4709. 1
  4710. 1
  4711. 1
  4712. 1
  4713. 1
  4714. 1
  4715. Sorry, but the ME-262 was not the worlds first je fighter. That honor belongs to the Heinkel 282. Powered by twin turbojet engines it was built in limited numbers and never really saw active service beyond possibly some point defense missions against allied bomber streams. The ME-262 was the first jet fighter to enter service and regular production though. The whole early period of jet engine and aircraft development is much more diverse involving more companies and individuals than generally understood. The great what if of WWII aviation isn't what if the Germans had embraced jet technology sooner. The great what if is if the British hadn't given Frank Whityle the cold shoulder in the late 20s and early 30s. But I'm not sure that airframe construction techniques and materials would have been up to the challenge. Remember people in the aviation industry were not idiots. The possibility of the gas turbine was generally recognized but the main line of thought was metallurgy wasn't up to the challenge in terms of low enough weight and heat tolerance. Most engineers looking at gas turbines at the time were looking into turbprops. Besides gas turbines were pretty well understood in that steam turbines are gas turbines that run on steam. If one considers a turbo supercharger (the proper term) an engine (it is performing useful work) that was taking the waste exhaust gases of a piston engine to turn a power turbine connected to a compressor turbine to feed compressed air back to the IC engin then the US built far more gas turbine engines than any other nation in WWII. In fact it probably produced more gas turbines than all other nations combined. The reason General Electric was picked to construct the first U built copies of the Whittle engine was because GE was the primary produced of turbo superchargers for the USAAC*. And today we have people building minature axial flow jet engines in their basements and garden sheds. Along with people building working jet engines out of the turbochargers from street vehicles. *in the US the engines, radios, armament etc was supplied by the government to the airframe manufacturers. The engines etc were built under contract to the US Army or Navy. Often the US government contracted the engine manufacturers to develop engines based on certain requirements. HP, altitude requirements etc. Often the engine manufacturers went off on their own but the development of a completely new engine could and sometimes did put a company under major financial strain.
    1
  4716. 1
  4717. 1
  4718. 1
  4719. 1
  4720. 1
  4721. 1
  4722. Countries like Saufi Arabia and other MidEastern countries along with those in North Africa do have in abundance is Solar. The crux is in the distribution problem. In reality the world as a whole does not face an shortage of energy. What the world as a whole lacks is a shortage of will. In the future as renewables*, new generation fission reactors and hopefully fusion (🤞) will be able to provide abundant power. But even when the world as a whole has moved to the above mentioned sources the petrochemical industry is not going to go away. Hydrocarbons are simply too useful as a feedstock for any number of products. In the future as humanity begins to exploit the resources of the Solar System** I can even see a small market for coal in space. Any off planet facility be it mining or even habitats is going to need a source of carbon in its environment. Coal is about the densest form of carbon I can think of that is readily accessible. Plus coal and other hydrocarbons can be used as the basic feed stock for graphene once that becomes readily available. But if renewables can cover all of our needs way even invest in fission or fusion at all. Simply because there areas where renewables simply will not work. Not unless we are willing to build the power distribution systems to reach those areas. *Solar in all its forms. Primary as in Solar Voltaics or Thermal. Secondary as in wind and hydro. Along with other solar sources that may work as viable options when combined with other technologies. One is Ocean Thermal combined with desalination. Clean water is most likely the biggest problem facing humanity in the coming decades aside from climate change. But even without climate change thrown into the mix clean water is at the top of the list. We currently produce enough food. The problem there is distribution in some areas. These problems are primarily economic and political. Ocean Thermal facilities partnered with an integrated desalination facility could provide potable water to nearby populations either via pipeline or surface transport. Even if countries that formerly exported oil cannot readily be tied into the global electric grid they can find an export market in water. And yes I know about the potential problems with brine and its release into ecosystems.
    1
  4723. 1
  4724. 1
  4725. 1
  4726. 1
  4727. 1
  4728. 1
  4729. 1
  4730. 1
  4731. 1
  4732. 1
  4733. 1
  4734. 1
  4735. 1
  4736. 1
  4737. 1
  4738. 1
  4739. 1
  4740. 1
  4741. 1
  4742. 1
  4743. 1
  4744. 1
  4745. 1
  4746. 1
  4747. 1
  4748. 1
  4749. 1
  4750. 1
  4751. 1
  4752. I doubt it. It's a matter of distance. Yes people have been using boats for a long time. There seems to evidence of boats* being used by both Neanderthals and Homo Erectus. I'm not positive that sea levels dropped low enough during Glavial Maximums for the Homo Erectus population that reached the island of Flores to have arrived on foot. If they did they were then cut of and then due to local environmental pressures slowly became the smallest known member of the genus Homo. That being Homo Florensis. The earliest arrivals in the Americas** probably arrived by boat hopping along the coasts of Eastern Siberia, Alaska and Beringia when sea levels dropped during a period of glaciation. A second possibility is from Western Africa around Senegal with the initial arrivals being fishermen driven across the Atlantic to Brazil's northern coast. The third option is people from Western Europe following seal populations along the edge of the pack ice. Both number 2 and 3 seem unlikely to lead to substantial populations in my opinion. The idea of people following the southern route route of Auxtralia, to Antarctica is very implausible in my opinion. This would involve crossing large stretches of ocean in the face of the worst seas on the planet. They aren't called the Roaring Forties and the Furious Fifties for the calm weather. Part of the reason for their being so bad is the Antarctic Current circling around the continent with no landmasses to deflect it. This is also why Antarctica iced over. Now for the wild cards in the deck. There is a site in Texas that turned up Carbon 14 dates of 26KYA. There is another site in Mexico that was dated around 120KYA iirc. Then there's the mammoth found in an excavation in the LA area that possibly shows evidence of butchering tools. My guess is the peopling of the Americas is a tale far more complicated and longer than we think. It may even include members of Homo Erectus who made it to the Americas only to die out. We don't even know just how many members of the Genus Homo actually existed. The Denisovians were unknown until recently. *Well watercraft of some sort. Part of the problem is organic materials simply don't last very long. **As noted in the video the name has baggage but we're stuck with it.
    1
  4753. 1
  4754. 1
  4755. 1
  4756. 1
  4757. 1
  4758. 1
  4759. 1
  4760. 1
  4761. 1
  4762. 1
  4763. 1
  4764. 1
  4765. 1
  4766. 1
  4767. 1
  4768. 1
  4769. 1
  4770. 1
  4771. 1
  4772. 1
  4773. 1
  4774. 1
  4775. 1
  4776. 1
  4777. 1
  4778. 1
  4779. 1
  4780. 1
  4781. 1
  4782. 1
  4783. 1
  4784. 1
  4785. 1
  4786. 1
  4787. 1
  4788. 1
  4789. 1
  4790. 1
  4791. 1
  4792. 1
  4793. 1
  4794. 1
  4795. 1
  4796. 1
  4797. 1
  4798. 1
  4799. 1
  4800. 1