If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#981
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Pudentame wrote: Ken Lucke wrote: In article , Pudentame wrote: Ken Lucke wrote: Uh, no. Sorry. The human pelvis is wider than that, even crushed. Just because an octopus can squeeze itself out though a hole no bigger than its beak, doesn't mean a human will squirt out a window similarly. I see you still don't have an example. Cite ONE case where a human being was blown out through an airliner window sized hole. Note the parameters here, which are in line with the original discussion of fireams in an airliner cabin. 3 November 1973; National Airlines DC10; over New Mexico, USA: The aircraft had an uncontained failure of one of the wing mounted engines. A piece of the engine struck the fuselage and broke a passenger window. One of the 116 passengers was sucked out of the aircraft during a rapid decompression. The remains of the passenger were not found. NTSB Identification: DCA74AZ031 Does it specify that the hole remained only the size of the window, or did the damage extend the aperture (g to use a photog term and have some relevance to this group)? I'd wager on the latter. Nope. You lose your bet. Here's a photograph of the side of the aircraft, showing one missing window. There's no enlargement of the window opening at all. http://faalessons.workforceconnect.o...f_50e2efdca602 or http://tinyurl.com/y69ed9 OK, I'll buy that one - if you look at the window size, in relation to normal airliner window sizes that I'm used to, it's much larger - it's almost full body size, from trying to do a comparison to the people standing around and the perspective. Yes, I'd believe a body _could_ get blown out of a window that size. I am sure that the size of windows in aircraft has been pretty much stable for the past 50 years. Perhaps the result of some calculation, and testing for this possibility? |
#982
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Bill Funk wrote: On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:25:46 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote: In article , Bill Funk wrote: On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:45:57 -0800, "William Graham" wrote: If you read what I wrote, I think you'll agree with me, no matter how often you actually fly with a firearm. I did not say anything about not being able to fly with a firearm. I said flying with a firearm is not an essential liberty. Well, when the Constitution was drafted, flying anywhere was inconceivable, so of course, it wasn't an "essential liberty". but the Constitution has a, "spirit" that is evident throughout the text, and to me, were it being drafted today, the second amendment would not offer any exceptions to being at 30,000 feet altitude. IOW, if it is one's right to carry a handgun to protect oneself at sea level, it should be also ones right to carry one while in the air. Of course, there are many who disagree that it is even one's right to carry a concealed weapon anywhere, and, although I disagree with these people, I have to accept their existence as a political force to be reckoned with. The Constitution hasn't had a problem so far keeping up with techinology. Along with rights go responsibilities. I seriously doubt those who pack heat fully understand the dangers of firing bullets in an airliner cabin. Actually, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the rest of the "discussion", I doubt that you do, either. It's been shown by testing that a bullet is incapable of creating explosive decompression in an airliner at altitude, and even a window being taken out by one is not sufficient to "suck" (blow, actually) a person out of it. The "being sucked out of a window" thing is a myth. There's a danger due to decreased oxygen at high altitude, but that's what the oxygen masks are for that drop down automatically when decreased cabin pressure happens. I never mentioned explosive decompression. What I have in mind is the fact that a *LOT* of wires and tubes run in the walls, cieling and floor of the cabin. True. And they are all AT LEAST doubly redundant, in a different portion of the craft, these days. Well, the new ones anyway. Some of the very small airlines still fly aircraft older than the pilots! |
#983
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Pudentame wrote:
Bill Funk wrote: On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 15:11:11 -0500, Pudentame wrote: Bill Funk wrote: On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:22:36 -0500, Pudentame wrote: Bill Funk wrote: It really doesn't need to be ammended. Flying with a handgun is hardly an essential liberty. Oddly enough, every time I've flown since 2001, I've had to carry one. ... and a rifle. Which means nothing as to "essential liberty." Means I've been doing my part. What about you? And what part is that? If you're a LEO, it goes with the job. What would satisfy you as to "my part"? Military. Got a DD214? got one of those... |
#984
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:18:24 -0500, Pudentame wrote: Ah. Mr. Heinlin. Writes a very good yarn, but his attitudes are somewhat to the right of Genghis Kahn. No, he merely, like many good SF authors took certain trends and extrapolated them to a fantastic degree, to the exclusion of other concurrent trends. It's possible he was extrapolating redneck chauvinism. But I think not. Authors' attitudes show through. I'm a long-time SF enthusiast, not just judging on one or two books. Concluding that an author has a single attitude, based on a single book can be a bad error. Should one read 'Farnham's Freehold', he might get the idea RAH was very different from what one would get from I Will Fear No Evil, or A Time Enough For LOVE. VERY different books in outlook, and tone. If you want the real R.A.H., read Glory Road, Door Into Summer, and To Sail Beyond the Sunset. |
#985
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Pudentame wrote:
Walter Banks wrote: Locked solid cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11 the plan depended on physical control of the airplane. The same controls hijackings. To some extent, but there's evidence that at least one of the hijackers out of Logan was dressed in a pilot's uniform and was "extended the courtesy" of riding in the cockpit by the flight crew. We collectively have given up a lot of freedoms in exchange for security. Surprisingly we critisize countries for oppression that may actually have found the balance between freedom and security. We have collectively given up a lot of freedom. I don't see where we have indeed have received security in return. From where I sit it looks kind of a lopsided exchange. One would need MUCH more that a uniform to get into the cockpit! As for giving up freedoms relative to flying now, as opposed to before 2001, just what freedoms? You mean taking off your shoes, or not carrying a pocket knife is an 'essential freedom' to you? Still, no one forces you to fly, there are other means of transport not so restricted as to what you can carry. Although on a recent cruise, the security approached what you see on an airliner. |
#986
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Pudentame wrote:
Bill Funk wrote: The Constitution hasn't had a problem so far keeping up with techinology. Along with rights go responsibilities. I seriously doubt those who pack heat fully understand the dangers of firing bullets in an airliner cabin. Ever heard of frangible ammunition? It's issued to sky marshals. Yes, but how many of those who would carry weapons on a flight would have that loaded in their weapons? More likely steel-jacketed, teflon coated, pierce anything cartridges.... |
#987
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Pudentame wrote:
Ken Lucke wrote: Actually, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the rest of the "discussion", I doubt that you do, either. It's been shown by testing that a bullet is incapable of creating explosive decompression in an airliner at altitude, and even a window being taken out by one is not sufficient to "suck" (blow, actually) a person out of it. The "being sucked out of a window" thing is a myth. There's a danger due to decreased oxygen at high altitude, but that's what the oxygen masks are for that drop down automatically when decreased cabin pressure happens. OTOH, if you loose a 10 foot section from the top of the fuselage due to metal fatigue ... Rapid descent! |
#988
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Pudentame wrote: Ken Lucke wrote: Actually, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the rest of the "discussion", I doubt that you do, either. It's been shown by testing that a bullet is incapable of creating explosive decompression in an airliner at altitude, and even a window being taken out by one is not sufficient to "suck" (blow, actually) a person out of it. The "being sucked out of a window" thing is a myth. There's a danger due to decreased oxygen at high altitude, but that's what the oxygen masks are for that drop down automatically when decreased cabin pressure happens. OTOH, if you loose a 10 foot section from the top of the fuselage due to metal fatigue ... Which, of course, doesn't happen because you fire a gun. Not likely, but an automatic weapon can cause structural damage should it be fired on full-auto. |
#989
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Pudentame wrote:
wrote: wrote: Not a Wankel, a diesel.... Oops. My bad. You were talking about diesels. Reading comprehension not at its highest level this evening. Carry on.... Could you build a Wankel diesel? Probably. They tend to have rather high compression ratios anyway. |
#990
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
William Graham wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... William Graham wrote: "Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... Bill Funk wrote: On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:45:00 -0800, "William Graham" wrote: "Pudentame" wrote in message ... Michael wrote: "William Graham" wrote in message . .. But how about having the ability to distill in in your garage? Freedom from all those nasty gasoline taxes? Who would know exactly how much you distilled? - And/or whether you drank what you didn't burn? Good idea, however you will most likely be required to purchase some sort of tax stamp from the ATF. Possibly from the state for road taxes. Used to be ATF, now it's TTB - Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. http://www.ttb.gov/industrial/alcoho...egs_laws.shtml If you divert any of it to drinking, you stand to lose your permit to manufacture fuel alcohol. Yeah.....Like they're really going to know that........I claim that such stills will eliminate the federal taxes on alcohol altogether.....Even in a liberal's wildest dreams, he can't come up with any way to enforce that law....:^) Actually, trying to put a still in everyone's garage will mean automating he still operation. This means storage of the raw materials, malting facilities (we would need to use the cheapest stock, meaning it would have to be malted), the grinder, the feeders, the still itself, the condensor, the storage. Since it would need to be automated, it's easy to require that all steps be monitored (they would need to be anyway, or economy and operation go out the window), and records kept. Presto! And someone would need to convince your neighbors that something that explosive would be safe in their neighborhood. There's no way to monitor that now....Meth labs blow up and start fires regularly...... Yes, as do natural gas leaks (which is one reason I DON'T have natural gas to my house). After my second life experience with natural gas and its hazards, I had it cut off. You too, huh? - My house is, "all electric". A few years back the gas company would have installed NG for free, provided I bought two major gas appliances. I love cooking on gas stoves, so that would have been one, and installing a gas clothes dryer would have made two, and I already had one of those sitting in storage......So, I considered taking up their offer, but I decided that the comfort of knowing that a gas leak wouldn't kill me in the middle of the night was worth sticking with electricity...... When I was about 6, my mother asked me to see if the oven was hot (back then, that meant opening it and checking the over thermometer). When I opened the door, the gas inside got the oxygen it needed, and I was 'flash burned' in the face. Lost all my eyebrows, eyelashes, much of my hair, and got 1st degree burns on my face. Then a few years ago, I was sitting watching TV and heard a 'POP' from the direction of the wall furnace. Pieces of burning insulation from the thermostat wiring were blown out onto the carpet. I quickly stomped them out, went outside and turned off the gas, and it has been off since. I have never felt that an open flame in the house was a safe idea. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pelican swallows pigeon | Daniel Silevitch | Digital Photography | 31 | October 31st 06 05:04 PM |
Hoya HMC CP filter | Eydz | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | October 22nd 06 01:21 AM |
Hoya 67mm circular polarizer + Hoya Skylight + Nikon D70 - some problems | Nicolae Fieraru | Digital Photography | 16 | April 10th 05 11:10 AM |
Hoya 67mm circular polarizer + Hoya Skylight + Nikon D70 - some problems | Nicolae Fieraru | Digital Photography | 0 | April 9th 05 06:03 AM |
Hoya Filters UV(0) OR UV(N) | ianr | Digital Photography | 0 | January 27th 05 10:31 PM |