Talk:2478: Alien Visitors 2 - Revision history

MarsJenkar: Response re: MythBusters test

2021-12-22T02:26:19Z

Response re: MythBusters test

Shamino at 13:19, 29 July 2021

2021-07-29T13:19:08Z

MarsJenkar: MythBusters result.

2021-07-28T13:33:15Z

MythBusters result.

172.70.130.6: /* Exobiology */ new section

2021-07-16T13:05:43Z

‎Exobiology: new section

Lamda05 at 06:19, 25 June 2021

2021-06-25T06:19:08Z

172.69.34.252: /* LINCOS */ typo

2021-06-24T20:34:58Z

‎LINCOS: typo

172.69.35.115: /* LINCOS */ example

2021-06-24T18:46:36Z

‎LINCOS: example

172.69.35.115: /* LINCOS */ ital.

2021-06-24T18:43:42Z

‎LINCOS: ital.

172.69.35.115: LINCOS section

2021-06-24T18:43:06Z

LINCOS section

172.69.35.115: LINCOS

2021-06-24T18:41:50Z

LINCOS

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:26, 22 December 2021
Line 40:		Line 40:

	::: See also [https://go.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/hindenburg-minimyth Hindenburg MiniMyth video]. They should have done a third test with hydrogen and some other doping on the skin, in order to show what component of the burn time was due to the thermite reaction. With the two tests they did, they only showed that hydrogen was a significant factor. [[User:Shamino\|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino\|talk]]) 13:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)		::: See also [https://go.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/hindenburg-minimyth Hindenburg MiniMyth video]. They should have done a third test with hydrogen and some other doping on the skin, in order to show what component of the burn time was due to the thermite reaction. With the two tests they did, they only showed that hydrogen was a significant factor. [[User:Shamino\|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino\|talk]]) 13:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::: They ''sort'' of did, in that they burned hydrogen plus a thermite mix (it took half the time of the hydrogen plus historical doping), but my guess is that you meant a doping mixture which definitely ''wouldn't'' become thermite. And I would have appreciated it had they followed that thread. The reason they didn't do that is because of the exact wording of the myth in question--that the Hindenburg burned ''solely'' because of the doping, and that hydrogen had no effect. Which, they showed, wasn't the case; the hydrogen definitely accelerated the burn. [[User:MarsJenkar\|MarsJenkar]] ([[User talk:MarsJenkar\|talk]]) 02:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

	I feel like the references to the Secretary series are in error. Ron Paul does have a blimp in those comics, so it's tangentially related, but the secretary series is very much not the alien visitors series.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.99\|162.158.187.99]] 12:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)		I feel like the references to the Secretary series are in error. Ron Paul does have a blimp in those comics, so it's tangentially related, but the secretary series is very much not the alien visitors series.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.99\|162.158.187.99]] 12:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:19, 29 July 2021
Line 38:		Line 38:

	:: Regarding the Hindenburg's rapid burning, the MythBusters did some tests that attempted to figure out what actually happened. Their tests indicated that the composition of the skin was indeed a factor (as their test ''without'' the hydrogen accelerated partway through the burn, indicating that doping was indeed having a thermite reaction), but that hydrogen was still the major factor in the speed of the burn (their model burned twice as fast with the hydrogen added than without). Conclusion: using a different paint composition may help but I'm not so certain that hydrogen can really be considered "safe". [[User:MarsJenkar\|MarsJenkar]] ([[User talk:MarsJenkar\|talk]]) 13:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)		:: Regarding the Hindenburg's rapid burning, the MythBusters did some tests that attempted to figure out what actually happened. Their tests indicated that the composition of the skin was indeed a factor (as their test ''without'' the hydrogen accelerated partway through the burn, indicating that doping was indeed having a thermite reaction), but that hydrogen was still the major factor in the speed of the burn (their model burned twice as fast with the hydrogen added than without). Conclusion: using a different paint composition may help but I'm not so certain that hydrogen can really be considered "safe". [[User:MarsJenkar\|MarsJenkar]] ([[User talk:MarsJenkar\|talk]]) 13:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	::: See also [https://go.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/hindenburg-minimyth Hindenburg MiniMyth video]. They should have done a third test with hydrogen and some other doping on the skin, in order to show what component of the burn time was due to the thermite reaction. With the two tests they did, they only showed that hydrogen was a significant factor. [[User:Shamino\|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino\|talk]]) 13:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

	I feel like the references to the Secretary series are in error. Ron Paul does have a blimp in those comics, so it's tangentially related, but the secretary series is very much not the alien visitors series.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.99\|162.158.187.99]] 12:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)		I feel like the references to the Secretary series are in error. Ron Paul does have a blimp in those comics, so it's tangentially related, but the secretary series is very much not the alien visitors series.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.99\|162.158.187.99]] 12:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:33, 28 July 2021
Line 36:		Line 36:

	: For sure the Hindenburg didn't explode - and there is evidence that much of the problem wasn't the loss of the hydrogen anyway since hydrogen flames ascend UPWARDS away from the passenger gondola - and hydrogen burns at a relatively low temperature. A bigger problem was that the skin of the airship was sprayed with iron oxide on the inside and aluminium on the outside - which, when burned together, was essentially "thermite". That stuff is hard to set on fire, but once it gets started it's horrifically energetic - it's what the Germans were using as incendiary bombs...so they REALLY should have known better! Given the rapidly increasing cost (and scarcity) of helium - airships may soon have to go back to using hydrogen. But it could easily be made safe with modern technology to monitor (and purge) oxygen from inside the hydrogen cells, adequate lightning protection...and an "anything-except-freaking-thermite!!" skin. [[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 16:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)		: For sure the Hindenburg didn't explode - and there is evidence that much of the problem wasn't the loss of the hydrogen anyway since hydrogen flames ascend UPWARDS away from the passenger gondola - and hydrogen burns at a relatively low temperature. A bigger problem was that the skin of the airship was sprayed with iron oxide on the inside and aluminium on the outside - which, when burned together, was essentially "thermite". That stuff is hard to set on fire, but once it gets started it's horrifically energetic - it's what the Germans were using as incendiary bombs...so they REALLY should have known better! Given the rapidly increasing cost (and scarcity) of helium - airships may soon have to go back to using hydrogen. But it could easily be made safe with modern technology to monitor (and purge) oxygen from inside the hydrogen cells, adequate lightning protection...and an "anything-except-freaking-thermite!!" skin. [[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 16:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	:: Regarding the Hindenburg's rapid burning, the MythBusters did some tests that attempted to figure out what actually happened. Their tests indicated that the composition of the skin was indeed a factor (as their test ''without'' the hydrogen accelerated partway through the burn, indicating that doping was indeed having a thermite reaction), but that hydrogen was still the major factor in the speed of the burn (their model burned twice as fast with the hydrogen added than without). Conclusion: using a different paint composition may help but I'm not so certain that hydrogen can really be considered "safe". [[User:MarsJenkar\|MarsJenkar]] ([[User talk:MarsJenkar\|talk]]) 13:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

	I feel like the references to the Secretary series are in error. Ron Paul does have a blimp in those comics, so it's tangentially related, but the secretary series is very much not the alien visitors series.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.99\|162.158.187.99]] 12:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)		I feel like the references to the Secretary series are in error. Ron Paul does have a blimp in those comics, so it's tangentially related, but the secretary series is very much not the alien visitors series.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.99\|162.158.187.99]] 12:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:05, 16 July 2021
Line 45:		Line 45:

	Wait, the alien is using holography. [[User:Lamda05\|Lamda05]] ([[User talk:Lamda05\|talk]]) 06:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)		Wait, the alien is using holography. [[User:Lamda05\|Lamda05]] ([[User talk:Lamda05\|talk]]) 06:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Exobiology ==
		+
		+	It is unclear whether they don't realize that lead is toxic to themselves, or whether they have been giving it to other species without thinking of the possibility that it could be toxic to other exobiologies. Please stop editing this out. You aren't "making things clearer" when you edit out this distinction. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.6\|172.70.130.6]] 13:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:19, 25 June 2021
Line 43:		Line 43:
	=== LINCOS ===		=== LINCOS ===
	How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: ''Lingua Cosmica,'' as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays? For example, would a society continually producing movies depicting themselves as violent agressive galactic conquers be eligible for first contact? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115\|172.69.35.115]] 18:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)		How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: ''Lingua Cosmica,'' as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays? For example, would a society continually producing movies depicting themselves as violent agressive galactic conquers be eligible for first contact? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115\|172.69.35.115]] 18:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	Wait, the alien is using holography. [[User:Lamda05\|Lamda05]] ([[User talk:Lamda05\|talk]]) 06:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:34, 24 June 2021
Line 42:		Line 42:

	=== LINCOS ===		=== LINCOS ===
−	How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: ''Lingua Cosmica,'' as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays? For example, would a society continually producing movies depicting themselves as violent ~~agressively~~ galactic conquers be eligible for first contact? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115\|172.69.35.115]] 18:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)	+	How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: ''Lingua Cosmica,'' as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays? For example, would a society continually producing movies depicting themselves as violent agressive galactic conquers be eligible for first contact? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115\|172.69.35.115]] 18:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, 24 June 2021
Line 42:		Line 42:

	=== LINCOS ===		=== LINCOS ===
−	How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: ''Lingua Cosmica,'' as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115\|172.69.35.115]] 18:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)	+	How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: ''Lingua Cosmica,'' as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays? For example, would a society continually producing movies depicting themselves as violent agressively galactic conquers be eligible for first contact? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115\|172.69.35.115]] 18:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:43, 24 June 2021
Line 42:		Line 42:

	=== LINCOS ===		=== LINCOS ===
−	How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: Lingua Cosmica, as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115\|172.69.35.115]] 18:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)	+	How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: ''Lingua Cosmica,'' as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115\|172.69.35.115]] 18:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:43, 24 June 2021
Line 41:		Line 41:
	As for biplanes - because they have ample wing area, they typically have shorter wing-spans than monoplanes. This reduces the moment of angular inertia and that allows them to turn more rapidly...and that is why they are used in aerobatics and crop spraying. The infamous "Red Baron" of WWI flew a Fokker triplane which enhanced the ability to maneuver even more - although at the expense of even more drag. However, high drag also means you can slow down much more rapidly - which allowed more interesting tactical possibilities. Biplanes were VERY useful in the era in which they were flown. They didn't vanish because they were a terrible technology - but because the nature of arial warfare changed. Modern fighter aircraft try to get the best of both worlds by having wings with a greater chord length - providing more lift area without messing up roll/yaw angular inertia. However, this does worsen longitudinal angular inertia - which is relatively unimportant in a modern "dogfight" where the only real requirement is to be able to turn tightly enough for a missile firing solution. [[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)		As for biplanes - because they have ample wing area, they typically have shorter wing-spans than monoplanes. This reduces the moment of angular inertia and that allows them to turn more rapidly...and that is why they are used in aerobatics and crop spraying. The infamous "Red Baron" of WWI flew a Fokker triplane which enhanced the ability to maneuver even more - although at the expense of even more drag. However, high drag also means you can slow down much more rapidly - which allowed more interesting tactical possibilities. Biplanes were VERY useful in the era in which they were flown. They didn't vanish because they were a terrible technology - but because the nature of arial warfare changed. Modern fighter aircraft try to get the best of both worlds by having wings with a greater chord length - providing more lift area without messing up roll/yaw angular inertia. However, this does worsen longitudinal angular inertia - which is relatively unimportant in a modern "dogfight" where the only real requirement is to be able to turn tightly enough for a missile firing solution. [[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

−	How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: Lingua Cosmica, as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115\|172.69.35.115]] 18:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)	+	=== LINCOS ===
		+	How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: Lingua Cosmica, as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115\|172.69.35.115]] 18:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:41, 24 June 2021
Line 40:		Line 40:

	As for biplanes - because they have ample wing area, they typically have shorter wing-spans than monoplanes. This reduces the moment of angular inertia and that allows them to turn more rapidly...and that is why they are used in aerobatics and crop spraying. The infamous "Red Baron" of WWI flew a Fokker triplane which enhanced the ability to maneuver even more - although at the expense of even more drag. However, high drag also means you can slow down much more rapidly - which allowed more interesting tactical possibilities. Biplanes were VERY useful in the era in which they were flown. They didn't vanish because they were a terrible technology - but because the nature of arial warfare changed. Modern fighter aircraft try to get the best of both worlds by having wings with a greater chord length - providing more lift area without messing up roll/yaw angular inertia. However, this does worsen longitudinal angular inertia - which is relatively unimportant in a modern "dogfight" where the only real requirement is to be able to turn tightly enough for a missile firing solution. [[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)		As for biplanes - because they have ample wing area, they typically have shorter wing-spans than monoplanes. This reduces the moment of angular inertia and that allows them to turn more rapidly...and that is why they are used in aerobatics and crop spraying. The infamous "Red Baron" of WWI flew a Fokker triplane which enhanced the ability to maneuver even more - although at the expense of even more drag. However, high drag also means you can slow down much more rapidly - which allowed more interesting tactical possibilities. Biplanes were VERY useful in the era in which they were flown. They didn't vanish because they were a terrible technology - but because the nature of arial warfare changed. Modern fighter aircraft try to get the best of both worlds by having wings with a greater chord length - providing more lift area without messing up roll/yaw angular inertia. However, this does worsen longitudinal angular inertia - which is relatively unimportant in a modern "dogfight" where the only real requirement is to be able to turn tightly enough for a missile firing solution. [[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 16:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	How do people feel about a discussion of the limitations of Freudenthal's (1960) LINCOS: Lingua Cosmica, as featured in the Jodie Foster film ''Contact''?[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_%28artificial_language%29] In particular, what limitations arise when higher-level communications must be based on screenplays. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.115\|172.69.35.115]] 18:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)