Pulling the extension cable connected to the power strip connected to the cable connected to my empeg.....PULLED MY EMPEG TO THE HARD CONCRETE!!!!!

I picked my baby up and applied several long kisses and got that horrifying message....HARD DRIVE NOT FOUND.....

I almost died. Luckly, I was able to open the case and push the IDE drive cable back in place, and thankfully, my poor abused empeg booted up.

I promised never, ever to misstreat my poor baby ever again. Now I need to find some kind of industructable case with inputs for power and RCA outs, so my empeg will be ready for my next attempt at DJ'ing the community block party.

Word to the wise.....treat your empeg right, and it'll treat you right.

Mike

10meg Mk II? or do you mean 10 gig Mk II

Yikes! Thats my kind of attention to detail....

Yikes! Thats my kind of attention to detail....

You can say that again!

i usually keep a 15 lb. weight on my power cord so just in case it gets pulled like that it'll have to pull that 15 lb. weight off first.

Biggest scare of your life?

Dude no offense, but it's only a car stereo...

only a car stereo?

Repent, you sinner!

i usually keep a 15 lb. weight on my power cord so just in case it gets pulled like that it'll have to pull that 15 lb. weight off first.

That conjurs up images of those Roadrunner cartoons:
It all goes horribly but predictably wrong - the empeg hits the ground first and makes a soft landing only to be followed by the 15lb weight then crashing down on top of it!

That conjurs up images of those Roadrunner cartoons

Hmm, better upgrade that weight to 45 lbs at least.

Or maybe simply install the empeg in an airline black box. Then it should be able to survive all sorts of disasters.

Or maybe simply install the empeg in an airline black box. Then it should be able to survive all sorts of disasters.

This always raises the question, why don't they just make the entire plane a black box so it survives a disaster?

I'm sure they could, but it comes down to human psychology. There are about a million and a half things that could be done to significantly reduce injury and are within reach of cost and technology for us to do but many people will not accept it.

For example, did you know if you reversed the orientation of the airline seats so that they faced backwards would significantly prevent death and injury in a big way, especially if the plane plows into the ground headfirst? People won't allow it, it's too disconcerting to fly "backwards." It would prevent people from getting split into two by their seatbelts, and prevent people from flying into a bulkhead at hundreds of miles an hour if their seatbelt fails or if a child is being held in their laps. And why even allow children to be "held in the lap" ? Even babies should pay full fare and get full protection in the event of a crash right? People won't allow it. Why have windows, these are essentially holes in the side of an otherwise strong structure, plugged with plastic. People won't allow it. The luggage compartments should lock automatically when the e-brake on the plane is disengaged, because when air turbulence or a crash occurs, heavy metal luggage comes flying out, decapitating people. People won't allow the luggage to be locked away. The latest small aircraft are equipt with a parachute....for the *entire plane* -- so that when something goes wrong, the parachute comes out and lands the plane vertically. It completely and utterly trashes the plane, but saves everyone on board. Airliners have demonstrably been shown to be landable entirely by autopilots using GPS. Military planes like those used in afghanistan can be controlled entirely by remote control. If cruise missiles can fly at mach 10, 20 feet from the ground, avoiding trees and buildings, travel hundreds to thousands of miles and hit a target the size of a pea, then certainly it is within the capability of autopilots to safely maneuver commercial passenger jets. Sheesh, even for autopilots to take over in the event of an emergency. But people won't allow it.

Calvin

it always feels good to vent, doesnt it?

customsex

This always raises the question, why don't they just make the entire plane a black box so it survives a disaster?

Um, because the black box doesn't even always survive. People have this image that the black box is made out of some magical indestructible material that will survive a serious catestrophic event like a plane crash. I seem to recal that a lot of the time the black box is dead as well, or at least not in great shape.

I thought the reason was: If they armored the plane the way they armored the black box, it would be too heavy to fly.

In reply to:

---

This always raises the question, why don't they just make the entire plane a black box so it survives a disaster?

---

Too expensive. Airlines are there to make money. Many aren't making much now. If all the strongest and latest in advanced materials, electronics, and construction techniques were used, planes would be far too expensive to fly both from a fuel economy standpoint as well as cost of ownership. So safety in planes is a trade-off. The same could be said for cars. They could all be built like tanks, but not many of us would be able to afford them. There is an economics article that I believe was called something like "Airline Safety- How safe is too safe?" that covers all this in great detail.

Stu

Yeah. There was a programme on Discovery a while back about blackboxes. Depending on when it was installed, the amount of data it records can vary wildly from only a few sensors to hundreds of different values.

The actual thingie that does the recording is tiny but the padding and shielding it needs to survive a plane crash and possibly sit in a pool of burning aviation fuel makes it so big.

- Trevor

Not to mention on a comercial aircraft there is not just one black box but somewhere around 50, all flight data recorders. its just the cockpit box that records all transmissions that is so famous.

Yup. And it's not actually black

- Trevor

Remind me next time I'm trying to be funny, to put a or even a at the end of it.

I know all the reasons, and all the things they can do to make things safer, I was just trying to be funny. But at least I started a discussion on the topic.

I know all the reasons, and all the things they can do to make things safer, I was just trying to be funny.

Heh, well you certainly picked an old, over-used cliched joke to be funny with.

(The "why don't they make the airplane out of the black box" line is often used when someone is trying to do a parody of a bad comedian... Sort of like a more subtle version of "take my wife please". I've seen it in a couple of movies and also used as part of a practical joke at a standups convention.)

In reply to:

---

This always raises the question, why don't they just make the entire plane a black box so it survives a disaster?

---

They should build them from stuff they used to make the children's doll that is inevitably found amongst the wreckage?

Gareth

Okay, now THAT is funny.

Okay, now THAT is funny.

Though hardly original. I just saw that exact line on Red Dwarf last night.
It was on the episode where they accidentally crash Starbug while navigating
a meteor field occupied by Psirens.
Lister explains to Cat that Starbug is safe in these crashes because it is
made of those very dollies.

You're lucky you didn't kill the display by breaking the filler neck.... OOOhh, big money!

In reply to:

---

Though hardly original. I just saw that exact line on Red Dwarf last night

---

Damn! Found out!

Seriously though, I couldn't remember where I heard it otherwise I would have given it due credit. Red Dwarf is well embedded in my psyche though I haven't seen much since Series VIII on BBC2... I do know a few people who could read off entire scripts word-perfect.

Series 1 is coming out on DVD very soon which should be good - lots of extras and excellent commentries etc. It won't be the "remastered" version which wasn't well received.

Gareth

There aren't 50, only 2. They are linked up to any number of systems, but physically, only two boxes exist.

Finally a topic on this board that I know crap about

I remember the first few times I went out to the Falklands they used VC10's with the seats all facing backwards. It's actually much more relaxing than most folk think...except for the climb immediately after takeoff, when you do feel like you are hanging by your lap belt:-)

Then again, I always prefer to sit in a rear facing seat on trains, somewhere near the rear of a carriage.

Paranoid? Me? Nahh.

While I'm not going to say every technological advance can be incorporated into aircraft for no money, there are savings to be had. Consider the lawsuit money involved whenever there is a crash or a hijacking? I think mostly from a psychological/human standpoint, nobody will allow it to happen. For decades, manufacturers have wanted to put fly-by-wire into passenger aircraft, and I think to this day most of them are still fly by cable.

Calvin

Good god, if there was 50 of them, they would never find the right one when there is a crash!

Calvin

That's not a vent, that's a rant. :-D

Calvin

All Boeing commercial aircraft are fly-by-cable. All (I think all, I know most are at least) of Airbus' commercial aircraft are fly-by-wire. Since Airbus is approaching the 50% marketshare, I'd guess around 40% of the planes flying are fly-by-wire.

Hmm, fly by cable, fly by wire, fly by night...
I know the difference in this situaton, but isnt a cable just a big wire?

Either way, I thought that the air control surfaces (rudders, ailerons) were actuated by hydraulics. And that is what caused the crash of a plane about 10 years ago near pittsburg - the hydraulics froze or something, forcing the rudder hard to one side. Pilots would never be able to exert enough force to move the control surfaces with their feet and hands.

I would have to verify with my cousin (works at Boeing) but I think the 777 is fly by wire. Or, maybe not... but it was at least the first aircraft of its kind designed entirely on computers using CAD/CAE.

By one definition, a cable is a collection of wires. But in this case, a cable is ``a wire or wire rope by which force is exerted to control or operate a mechanism''. (Merriam-Webster)

"Fly-by-wire" in this definition means electronic input to the main control surfaces via computer (among many other things like fuel delivery, . This is much like the newer Mercedes and BMW's. There is no throttle cable in those cars. When you depress on the accelerator, an electronic pulse is sent to the computer and the throttles are opened accordingly. As a commercial pilot, I can vouch for the benefits of such a system. It has been available in military aircraft for years. The Concorde was the first commercial fly-by-wire aircraft but most new aircraft produced after 1991 made by Boeing (B-777) and Airbus (A-330) are fly-by-wire aircraft.

It turns out the 777 is fly-by-wire and the A300 and A310 are fly-by-cable.

Fly-by-cable is where the pilot mechanically triggers the hydrolics that manipulate the control surface (or in the way old school days, mechanically manipulate the control surface with no hydrolics). Fly-by-wire does this with electrical impulses, the feeling of 'moving' the control surface is simulated by attaching a weight to the input device (stick/yolk) that provides the increased strength needed to move a device in different conditions (hard to explain, but if you want, I can try). Fly-by-light is the same as fly-by-wire except with fiber optics and light pulses instead of electrical. I think the LockMart JSF is the first aircraft to use this, but FBL appears in the V-22 acronym list as Fly-by-Light also, so maybe the V-22 uses it also.

Why is fly by wire better than fly by cable? It would seem like cable would be less likely to fail.

Why is fly by wire better than fly by cable? It would seem like cable would be less likely to fail.

No.

Cable is a mechanical construct, with bell-cranks, pivots, bearings, pulleys, any number of components that can break, stretch, wear out, or fail in other ways.

Fly by wire means you replace all that mechanical paraphernalia with a simple wire. All it has to do is stay in one piece (no reason for it to do otherwise, is there?) and carry the occasional electron or two from one end to the other. Simpler and more reliable.

tanstaafl.

Right, it puts all the work on other things like the servos, pumps and other little fun beasties that wouldn't exist if not for FBW.

The F16 was fly by wire wasn't it? If I recall correctly, the 'wire' portion of many of the planes was severed from vibration and high G's. Subsequently, the 'Fly' portion of the vehicle was disabled. This usually happend when the plane was located many thousands of feet above solid earth.

There were no indications of a problem before this happened. Several planes crashed before the cause was discovered.

Is it better? Hmmmmm......

Also, as I understand it, many new-fangled planes (the F-22 pops to mind) are extraordinarily maneuverable because they are on the verge of instability, and without computers making thousands of corrections a second, wouldn't fly at all. And those corrections would be impossible if it weren't being flown by wire.

That's exactly the sort of thinking that is preventing wider adoption of fly by wire. ("good enough for my car is good enough for the air-o-plane...")

Calvin

The F16 was fly by wire wasn't it? If I recall correctly, the 'wire' portion of many of the planes was severed from vibration and high G's.

Yeah, I saw that TV special, too. (Was that Nova or 60 Minutes? Don't remember.) Scary stuff.

Thing is, mechanical and hydraulic systems can fail, too. I, um, havent gotten on an airplane in a long time.

There are steer by wire and brake by wire (further away) development programs under way at companies such as SKF, Motorola, TRW, and Delphi. The current 'Quadrasteer' system on some GM trucks has no mechanical linkages between the steering wheel and the rear steering actuators.

-Zeke

Actually most all Fighter planes still in Service use computers to correct, at the speeds they use one bullethole can change their aerodynamics to the point it would almost impossible to correct manually without putting the pilot into some serious G's first.

You cannot have a very maneuverable aircraft that is completely stable, the two are mutually exclusive. For aircraft that need to be extremely stable (think freighters, tankers, commercial), they sacrifice maneuverability to acheive the stability.

Due to the weight differences, it is possible to have layers upon layers upon layers upon layers of backup systems for a FBW system. A cable system is much heavier, so it only has one or two backup systems.

Oh *please* someone tell the German television stations that we really need Red Dwarf over here!! Saw some of the early stuff back in NZ and would love to catch some more of it some time. Hmmm, can you get BBC2 on satelite?

Not easily, I BBC 2 used to transmit in the clear on analogue satellite (possibly one of the eutelsats) but I doubt it's still done.

Yeah, [bold]unstable airframes[/bold] are all the rage for modern fighter jets. F22, JSF, Eurofighter Typhoon etc. All are aerodynamically unstable and [bold]require[/bold] Fly-By-Wire technology to even get off of the ground.

In reply to:

---

There are steer by wire and brake by wire (further away) development programs under way at companies...

---

Mercedes Benz 2003 SL uses brake by wire. It does have a mechanical backup though.

Nice and comforting, esp since I have seen quite a few reports of throttle by wire going out (on new cars - what happens to people like me that drive 20 year old cars 20 years from now??)

You should know better than me Andy, but I thought you could get our digital satelite over most of Europe.
In caravan/motorhome magazines, they advertise self seeking satellite dishes with this claim, also for use by long distance truckers.

I've just been in Majorca and they are certainly advertising set ups to get 1,2,ITV,4 and 5, with a free card, in shop windows.

I think you forget that the pea in question is a Minnesota county fair prize winning pea!

This is not a pea to be messed with.

This is a pea even a Bolo would think twice about!

Do not underestimate the power of the pea...

Funny,

I'd never heard it before. I must have excellent taste in commedians....