tso-d_chris

I agree that weathervaning will not always turn a canopy downwind. See quote from one of my previous posts. (The stabilizer shape is a very big factor, and I initially failed to consider it.) All I'm saying is that a given canopy will weathervane in a similar, consistent manner given similar conditions. I think this is being considered in Newtonian terms, not quantum. What makes it seem random is our poor ability to predict wind accellerations.

First, it is not required to edit video or create music on your computer in order to use it creatively. Fact is, pretty much everyone has a channel through which their creativity shows. If they are on a computer a lot, it will likely show up there, as well. It just may not show up as art. I don't know what point you think I proved, but you should consider rereading my post. The only person I know that does not use their Mac doesn't care. The Mac advocates I know are constantly on their Apple boxes. And make no mistake, the use their computers creatively, networking, video editing, Computer based home theater, and countless other ways. I guess your theory needs revision.

If the air mass has an average accelleration not equal to zero the movements are not really random at all. They tend to be in one direction more often than others. There should be a corresponding direction that a canopy is more likely to land in, with no input. For Great Deals on Gear

We do, more on some days than others. Bear in mind that we are discussing a situation in which there is zero pilot input. Most people, whether they are aware of it or not, make these very mimor corrections just by shifting their weight in the saddle. It is only when there is absolutely no pilot input that the effects will substantially accumulate. For Great Deals on Gear

I admit I know nothing about 3D animation at this time, so I'll have to take your word for it. Umm, the strongest Mac advocates I know are techs and network administrators. I only know one person with a Mac that doesn't use it for anything, and she'd rather talk about guns. And, no, I'm not bothered by the one button mouse. I click with the trackpad, so a second button would be wasted. I do use ctrl click often, though, so I understand why most people prefer a two (or more) button mouse.

The planform is symetrical about the front/back axis. The front of the airfoil is not symetrical with the rear of the airfoil, about the left/right axis. This has the effect of allowing a rotation when the air is resisted differentially when it comes accellerating from the side. Rarely will the accelleration be exactly parallel with the velocity of the canopy relative to the airmass. Air masses do not move in a constant manner. It is a giant 4D vector field in which we fly our canopies, with lots of different velocities. There is nothing constant about it. Our canopies have to react to all that relative accelleration. They are going to weathervane in the direction of the average accelleration of the wind. There are many other factors that need to be considered that will determine whether that orientation is into the wind, or downwind; among them is where the CG is on the planform and the shape of the stabilizers.

I don't think we are visualizing the same system. I am referring strictly to yaw, not pitch or roll. If since the airfoil profile is not symetrical, the effect will not be identical with two different headings relative to the wind velocity. And, any crosswind component will apply torque to the canopy, about a vertical axis. For Great Deals on Gear

Personally, I prefer Office 2004, but to each their own! Fortunately for folks like you, Microsoft has been very attentive to your needs, making sure that Longhorn The Cash Cow is reverse compatible with legacy software such as VisiCalc! http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1786061,00.asp You are right about Macs being inferior gaming machines, but that is changing, as well. BTW X-Plane is available for Mac. So is Doom 3. Not really being a gamer, I can't say how they compare. As for cracking the system so that it will run on a generic x86 box, it might happen, but I wouldn't hold your breath. Apple is not likely to make it easy enough to be practicle. Besides, I can build a loaded G5 iMac for far less (~$800) than a comparable (but still slightly inferior in features) Dell PC. I can already run more than 10 different OSs on my Mac, without any need for extra HDDs. Of course, there is no need, in my case. OS X works great for me.

I'm not understanding why the asymetrical shape of the airfoil profile is not going to affect how the canopy is oriented in the wind with zero pilot input. What force is balancing everything back out? From what I can tell, there ar far too many variables to be able to say this is always going to happen, or this is never going to happen. For Great Deals on Gear

Office Space: "We see you've been missing a lot of work lately." " I wouldn't say I've been missing it, Bob." For Great Deals on Gear

I have yet to find any software that I want that is not supported by Mac. Word? -- Started on Mac. Excel? -- First appeared on Mac Office? -- Mac had it first. And the Mac version has more features than the current Win version. Photoshop? -- Again, Windows users had to wait for a port. WinMedPlayer is not what I would consider a good piece of software, but many people are more concerned with size than picture quality. That is their choice. What I can't open with VLC (which, incidentally, is a very nice free media player that plays most anything I throw at it.), I will reluctantly play with WMP, which sucks just as badly on the Mac as it does on the PC. So, I can get pretty much any software I desire for my Mac, money notwithstanding. And, in the rare event I find a piece of software that only runs on a PC, all I have to do is start Windows XP in Virtual PC to run it. Sure, it's gonna be a bit slower, but the time I save on the vast majority of apps that do run on my Mac more than make up the difference. Can you run OS X apps on your PC? If not, then I guess you have far less software available to you than I do with my Mac.

Maybe someone running Tiger can download the site and Spotlight for it. Sorry, I still have Panther.

Sounds good. You build it, I'll sell it! For Great Deals on Gear

True if and only if the velocity of the canopy and the velocity of the airmass are constantly parallel (remember, zero pilot input). These condtions are nonexistent in real world scenarios. We live in a world of Calculus, not Algebra. For Great Deals on Gear

Consider the asymetrical shape of the airfoil profile. There is significantly more surface area on the front half of the profile than the back half. Any cross wind component is going to apply moore force to the front of the canopy than the back. This force differential will rotate the canopy about the vertical axis upon which the CG lies. In fairness, the shape of the stabilizer can mitigate these effects. But certainly we cannot say that a canopy will not ever orient itself in a particular direction relative to the wind velocity. In the unlikely event you ever get to fly in a windmass with zero accelleration, regardles of location, and you are pointed exactly into the wind, there would be no torque applied to your canopy to change your heading. For Great Deals on Gear

Air Jose in Deland uses used cooking oil from a local Chinese restaurant in his diesel Mercedes. When Rudolph Diesel introduced his famous engine at the 1900(?) World's Fair, he used corn oil for fuel. For Great Deals on Gear

I went about modeling the effects mathematically, and came to these conclusions regarding a canopy's tendency to orient itself into a downwind heading: 1. It depends on where upon the chord line that chord line intersects the vertical axis on which the CG is located. The farther forward, the less likely the canopy will try to orient itself downwind. At the halfway point, the effects should be noticeable. 2. It depends on the area and curvature of the airfoil profile. 3. It depends on the changing winds. Light and variable winds will have a significantly smaller effect than strong, gusting or steadily increasing winds. 4. Since momentum is a function of velocity relative to the Earth, it takes more force to overcome the inertia of a canopy flying downwind versus one that is flying into the wind. I'm not trying to imply that your canopy will hookturn to a downwind heading if left without user input. But, with a downwind heading most canopies are going to be most resistant to the effects of the little inevitable changes in air velocity. So sooner or later, with zero pilot input, the canopy is more likely than not to end up downwind or close to it. For Great Deals on Gear

Variations in wind speed will have minor affects on velocity magnitude and direction. For Great Deals on Gear

It's all in the processing and the dage and diet of the critters. If processed properly, venison can be free of any game taste. Personally, I tried Elk once, and it was among the mildest, best tasting meat I've ever tried. I eat venison on a regular basis, and find some cuts superior to their beef counterparts, others inferior. Of course when Joe Bob Hunter drives 2hrs to a check in station with an improperly cleaned deer drped over the hood of his car, It might be a good idea to avoid the summer sausage he tries to give away at work. I haven't hunted for many years, but know people who hunt successfully on a frequent regular basis, so we end up with a lot of meat. It's healthier, and not pumped full of hormones and such.

I was thinking that was the primary difference, but could not remember for sure. I, too, prefer an analog readout, but will likely stick with my galaxy for awhile. BTW I think when two electronic altimeters are used, it is a good idea to use two different manufacturers, so that should one be outside its ideal operating conditions, there is a higher liklihood that the other one will not be. In other words, it is less likely that both fail simultaneously. For Great Deals on Gear

The lines and fabric for canopies have different lifespans in different geogrphic areas. So it depends a lot on where the canopy has been jumped. For Great Deals on Gear

I'm seeing an unstable equilibrium (approach into the wind) vs. a stable equalibrium (downwind approach). If it is going down wind, slight variations in airspeed due to slightly dynamic wind speed (unfortunately we do not get to jump in perfectly still air) should tend to orient the canopy down wind. Flying into the wind, however, and those same slight variations are going to cummulatively force the canopy off the wind line. If I jump a large student canopy (smaller canopies are too sensitive to harness shifts) with no toggle, riser or harness input, experience tells me I will find the canopy slowly orienting itself in a downwind direction. My reserve, however, is much less sensitive to harness input, compared to my main. For Great Deals on Gear

It's all just flying your parachute. Swooping is just advanced canopy control. For Great Deals on Gear

To the etent of the most basic canopy skills, I agree. However, there is no way you can learn all the skills necessary for today's canopy pilots in 25 jumps. Many AFF dropzones try to do it in eight. But everyone can improve their canopy skills. In fact, I know of one world class swooper who may well be one of Scott Miller's best customers I couldn't agree more. One of the problems, IMO, is the potential conflict of interest that can arise when the DZO wears the S&TA hat. For Great Deals on Gear

While we're asking questions, have you ever noticed that beer companies rarely use shirtless fat men with lots of back hair as models in their commercials.?