Not really... I like novels about submarines ("Run Silent, Run Deep" has to be the all time classic) but mostly I am cursed by an overly analytical temperament. If I read a sci-fi novel, and the heroes go to the moon at a continuous acceleration of .7G, I have to stop reading and work out the math to see if the author got it right (4.2 hours assuming zero velocity when they arrive). Watching a movie where the bad guy takes off in his car, tires squealing on a dirt road makes me crazy. And when I see claims involving numbers, particularly numbers that have to correlate with other numbers, I can't rest until I check them out. A little Newtonian physics, a bit of knowledge about drag and power from my flying days, and a bit of common sense, and suddenly things don't add up so well.

This makes us two (besides seeming to be among this list seniors ). I will look up the novel right away. I enjoyed Clancy sub-novels well enough (real Clancy's, of course, 'Hunt for Red October' and 'Red Tide Rising' or something, not garbage like 'SNN'), so I suppose I will like your favourite.

Several friends of mine have 20-something year long custom of comunal video (now DVD) watching, once a week or so. Whenever the movie has anything to do with technology or science (including mechanics of driving or flying, as you mentionend), the hostess jokes I have to keep my mouth full of food, beer or something, so that I cannot complain at goofs all the time.

One of my all time favorites is the pirate move, where the pirates pick up the chest full of gold bars and load it in their dinghy and row across the bay. Well, if the chest were three feet by two feet by two feet (12 cubic feet) it would weigh... let's see, 3*2*2*(1728/231)*167 pounds, or close enough to 15,000 pounds (about 6800 kilograms) as not to matter. About $45 million worth at modern prices.

Now, I challenge anyone to figure out what "3*2*2*(1728/231)*167" is all about!

Well, 3*2*2 is volume in cubic feet, additional factor od 1728 gives cubic inches. Now, just to figure out what has volume of 231 cubic inches and how do we know it weights 167 pounds if made of gold...

Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Zagreb, Croatia
Q#5196, MkII#80000376, 18GB green

Yes, but what would it weigh on the moon?



Reg #2845: Mark 1 #00173, Mark 2 #119

(I should have used furlongs somewhere, but I could not remember how much is that - 220 yards?)

I'm not sure about a furlong, but by my calculations the pressure increase with depth is approximately
68.364 stone to the square Mesopotamian great cubit, per fathom. This gives a pressure rise on those
windows of about 1169.297 stone each, per fathom, or almost exactly 939241 stone per standard
Imperial Roman mile.

I could go on, but I won't

Patrick.


Opinions expressed in this email may contain up to 42% water by weight, and are mine. All mine.

Don't you just love this board?

I was scared it has been getting a bit tame of late, but this thread has just restored my faith.

PS To return to something like the original thread, I have a friend here whose father is considering installing a Mk 2 in his CAT Land tractor, to while away those dull hours spent trogging up and down spraying meadows. At the moment he is undecided about whether to go for for Alpine or MTX amps, though - he's not sure that 200W/channel is going to be enough in the cab...

PPS Farmers here are rich....

One of the few remaining Mk1 owners... #00015

I'm not sure about a furlong...

If memory serves me right, there are about 402 Mespotamian great cubits in a furlong.

This gives a pressure rise on those windows of about 1169.297 stone each, per fathom

Hmmm... are you sure about that?

Let's see...

we know that there is 1 kilogram per square centimeter increase in pressure for each 10 meters of depth.

That would give .1575 stone weight per square cm increase in pressure for each 10 meters.
That would give .1575 stone weight per square cm increase in pressure for each 5.468 fathoms.
That would give .0288 stone weight per square cm increase in prressure fo each 1.0 fathoms.
That would give 72.01 stone weight per square cubit increase in pressure for each 1.0 fathoms.*

Since each window is 14.297 square cubits, that would be 1,029.55 stones pressure per fathom.**
At a depth of 1000 feet (=166.67 fathoms) total pressure would be 171,595 stones per window.

*Given the standard assumption of 1 cubit = 1/2 meter
** 7' diameter window = 4.267 cubits diameter = 14.3 square cubits.

I'm guessing you used a different value for cubits than I did... something in the vicinity of .002184 furlongs, instead of the more properly accepted .002485 furlongs, perhaps? That might account for the discrepancy in our figures.

Hey, let's you and I get together and design an airplane next week!

One Egyptian says to another: "You may be right, Pythagoras, but they're all going to laugh at you if you call it a hypotenuse."

tanstaafl.







"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"

Sigh. I told you guys to quit encouraging him. Now look what you've done.

___________
Tony Fabris

Okay i know that i might be a bit late in replying to this but i had mine with me at work.

My work is on a VLCC oil tanker weighing in at 350685tons displacement

I had the empeg installed on there does that count.

My work is on a VLCC oil tanker weighing in at 350685tons displacement. I had the empeg installed on there does that count.

Sure.

Imagine the space you'd have for subwoofers and amps.

___________
Tony Fabris

probably most powerful as well with 27000Bhp

probably most powerful as well with 27000Bhp

Yeah, but I'm sure its 0-60 times suck.

___________
Tony Fabris

depending on its overall length, its quarter mile times might be instantaneous

____________________
Murray 06000047

Definitly a red light on that.

its quarter mile times might be instantaneous

I hereby claim undisputed custody of the "Strangest Place for an empeg" championship.

tanstaafl.

"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"

More pics...

tanstaafl.

"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"

Okay i conceed but i still champion of biggest thing to have empeg installed it is even bigger than some of those american trucks

How's the battery life working out for you?

=-C

______________________________________
Queue 351, Now Mk II #60000022 18gb, Blue

How's the battery life working out for you?

Battery life is quite acceptable.

It is a 12V 5 Amp-Hour battery and even allowing that I don't want to deep-cycle it (that's very bad for lead-acid batteries) I figure it will run the empeg for at least eight hours. In a preliminary test, I ran the empeg non-stop for four and a half hours, and the battery voltage had dropped from 13.2 volts at the start to 12.2 volts at the end.

At my normal usage, if I put the battery charger on it every three days, I'll be fine. I have the same plug on the battery charger that the empeg uses, so I just unplug the power lead from the empeg and plug it into the charger.

However... [pause for dramatic effect] not all is sweetness and light in bikempeg land. See my latest post in General...

tanstaafl.

"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"