subhro

I prefer https://www.truecable.com/products/all-in-one-crimp-and-term... and pretty much every single one of their tools.

Coriolis effect. Google it.

American Express and Chase. I have both and they are awesome... so far.

IRC Bot.

<s>IRC? That’s sounds familiar.</s> :P

You can.

You are right. I was mostly simplifying the description for NOT aeronautical engineers. But you are absolutely right.

Thank you for correcting me. That is indeed what I meant.

Very true. I never said the turbine is not a marvelous piece of engineering. But it DOES provide very little thrust.

Turboprops indeed fight wing tip vortices. But they also have a problem of not being able to shape air properly like Turbofans can do with stator vanes and such. As you stated, ducts are awesome.

Great question.

Turbo props and turbo fans, both produce thrust, but very differently.

In a turbofan, the turbine spends most of its effort turning the compressor blades. In a modern turbofan (TF) engine like GE 9x, you are looking at a 80-20 bypass ratio. This means, 80% of the air drawn from the front just flows through. Now, as the "FAN" (duh!) rotates, a huge volume of air is drawn in and compressed. As the volume moves deeper into the engine, the air pressure increases because the engine tapers down, as well as the compressor works in "compressing" the voume of air. As the air pressure increases, so does the speed and temperature. Now, as this compressed air exits from the back of the engine, it provides a forward thrust. The 20% air that DID get into the core, carrys on the combustion in the engine that provides the energy required to rotate the compressor blades. Now this is definitely simplified as there are many additional pieces, like stator vanes, equipment to shape and correct the velocity of the air, fuel injectors, igniters, afterburners (not in civilian airplanes of course) and many more contraptions.

While not completely comparable, a turbo prop (TP) behaves a lot like its piston counterpart. The turbine is simply replacing a traditional 4 stroke IC engine in this case and just tasked with rotating the blades. Each of the blade is a mini (well not so mini) wing that has the shape of an airfoil. As these rotate, they generate lift but since the rotational axis is parallel to the fuselage, it is actually thrust.

> Is it just cheaper to build a turboprop, and turbofans are the ultimate in terms of performance?

It is definitely cheaper to build a TP. And TPs can take a lot of abuse and needs miniscule maintanance compared to TFs. But if you are talking of raw performance, turbojets (TJ) actually run (fly?) around in circles around TFs. TJs are just incredibly wasteful, inefficient and needs a lot of maintenance.

This is a very nice demonstration of turbojet. While it has not been claimed as such in the video, this is how most of the modern airplanes DO NOT work.

Modern airplanes use turbofans which has an extremely high bypass ratio. In a turbofan, the turbine mostly rotates the various stages and creates very little thrust.

This is so true. I avoid using my phone other than to receive phone calls and sometimes text people. I find most of the dedicated devices like voice recorders, GPS, flashlight has a far more intuitive, faster and more functional interface than the apps that mimic them on a phone.

Also, my GPS can (and has) jumped out of my backpack and dropped over 100ft and worked (and still works) just fine. Not sure I would like to bet my life hoping the same outcome with my phone while I am in the middle of nowhere.

Not the OP but I use a Zoom H1N. Terrific device and runs on 2 NiMH AAA cells

Very similar to what I found in Amazon. Hell indeed.

Was able to get a Model S my friend bought in 2021 into limp mode when I took it to track after 3 laps. I believe the battery overheated after the 3rd lap. In the mean time, my STi was driving in circles for the next 20 or so laps.

I have got both a corded and cordless Dyson vacuum. For my high pile carpeted floors, I find that the battery powered one just does not have sufficient power even though the brush design is better than the corded one.

In general, I have come to hate battery powered stuff including laptops, power tools and cars because they just dont pack enough raw power for my needs.

As a pilot, wanted to insert a little fun here:

“Terrain, Terrain, PULL UP, PULL UP”

Hopefully you were not sleeping. ;)

I have a strange problem where my Mac Pro forgets the arrangement of my monitors. I have to drag them over in “Display” but only sometimes.

> I wouldn't try frying eggs in a cast iron, for instance (technically you can, but it requires an absurd amount of oil)

Which means you need to do a better job at seasoning. Cast iron is used almost exclusively at my place and I use less than 1/2 TSp oil for eggs. Granted my newest skillets are made is 1930s.

I have tried the Shavette thing, but in my opinion they stand somewhere between the Gillette and a cutthroat straight.

> I stopped using a straight razor since I couldn't get the edge as sharp as I'd like to

Don’t get mad at me, but what you need is a 5000, 8000 and maybe 12000 grit Naniwa (or comparable) superstone. Also, a good strop. Leather would be sufficient.

Send your razor off for establishing a good edge to Portland Razor Co. Once you get it back, you should be able to maintain that edge with minimal fuss.

Carbon steels can get sharper but you need to be really on top of it on maintenance. Stainless steel is more durable and tolerates some abuse but does not retain edge as well.

Lastly, don’t hurry while shaving, and don’t drop the damn razor please.

Source: Guilty as charged.

> Aside from differences in cost, do you find anything about a straight razor compellingly better than e.g. a Gillette Mach 3?

Quality of shave. If you maintain your straight razor, and mind it, it does require some maintenance, the quality of shave is of no comparison. My wife can instantly make out the difference when I shave in a hurry with Mach 3.

> Im not sure theres a single place on earth with water but not without life.

Really not trying to be a spoilsport here. But how about Dead Sea? ^_^

> Sure, but how often do you have them on your person in time to take candid photos?

Totally bad argument in justifying phone cameras. If you are having the expectation of getting photos of similar quality as shown on the page, my question is, how often do you have a high quality ring light on your person along with a stable tripod?

Three kickass books I found very helpful in improving my slide-foo and hold the attention of my audience:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596522347/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b... https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470632011/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b... https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1101980168/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...

If you only have time to go through 1 book, I would recommend Slide:ology.

Ahem... YubiKey... maybe?

iCloud anyone?

Another subscription….

sigh

Analogue computers are fun, and faster (in some instances) for my use case. I still regularly use E6B for in flight calculations, an analogue flight computer, although I fly a glass cockpit.

> But I am wondering why the author does not value his personal time.

Maybe, because it is fun reverse engineering stuff?