Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure"

Roger (K8RI) writes:

At cruise RPM that effect would be completely lost. There's not a
bird or human alive that can discern stroboscopic effects of more than
a couple hundred cycles let alone over a 1000. Most of us can't even
discern 60 cps.

Birds have much better vision than human beings, and I don't believe anyone
has tested their ability to discern stroboscopic effects. And the front fan
on a turbofan is turning at around 40-50 revolutions per second, not
thousands.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Roger (K8RI) writes:

At cruise RPM that effect would be completely lost. There's not a
bird or human alive that can discern stroboscopic effects of more than
a couple hundred cycles let alone over a 1000. Most of us can't even
discern 60 cps.

Birds have much better vision than human beings, and I don't believe
anyone
has tested their ability to discern stroboscopic effects. And the front
fan
on a turbofan is turning at around 40-50 revolutions per second, not
thousands.

Guess again.

Maxwell writes:

Guess again.

It wasn't a guess.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

Guess again.

It wasn't a guess.

Of coarse it is, you prove yourself as clueless as ever. You and your
friend AirBuzz need to do your home work. Your unwillingness to experience
the real world has left you short of observing such a thing with your own
eyes.

Get out of your basement and go to the airport. This phenomenon is apparent
to the naked eye under continuous lighting conditions. You might need to
wait for a three or four blade prop, but it DOES happen in real life.
Something your prove once again you know little or nothing about.

Maxwell writes:

This phenomenon is apparent to the naked eye under continuous
lighting conditions.

No, it is not.

You might need to wait for a three or four blade prop, but
it DOES happen in real life.

No, it does not. Continual assertions to the contrary will not change this.

In article , says...



"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
.. .
Roger (K8RI) writes:

At cruise RPM that effect would be completely lost. There's not a
bird or human alive that can discern stroboscopic effects of more than
a couple hundred cycles let alone over a 1000. Most of us can't even
discern 60 cps.

Birds have much better vision than human beings,


Demonstrably true.



and I don't believe
anyone
has tested their ability to discern stroboscopic effects.


You're out on a limb there. There has been A LOT of testing on birds' vision,
and they don't necessarily ask your opinion. . .



And the front
fan
on a turbofan is turning at around 40-50 revolutions per second, not
thousands.



Guess again.


Well, I think he made a pretty good "guess" - the GE90-115B tha powers the
777 turns (front fan) at 2550RPM, or 42.5 RPS. He probably didn't ahve to
guess much, as these facts are easily and irrefutably verified. I "guess" you
haven't learned that. . .

Airbus writes:

You're out on a limb there. There has been A LOT of testing on birds' vision,
and they don't necessarily ask your opinion. . .

Which tests have been done?

Well, I think he made a pretty good "guess" - the GE90-115B tha powers the
777 turns (front fan) at 2550RPM, or 42.5 RPS. He probably didn't ahve to
guess much, as these facts are easily and irrefutably verified.

I obtained the facts from the engine specifications, so no guessing was
required.

In article ,
says...


Airbus writes:

You're out on a limb there. There has been A LOT of testing on birds'
vision,
and they don't necessarily ask your opinion. . .

Which tests have been done?

Forget it dude - I'm not like you - will not make categorical statements
about subjects I know nothing about. I do not pretend, like you, to know what
studies may have been done. You seem to feel that somùething you do not know
(which you must admit encompasses the near totality of subjects) cannot exist.




Well, I think he made a pretty good "guess" - the GE90-115B tha powers the
777 turns (front fan) at 2550RPM, or 42.5 RPS. He probably didn't ahve to
guess much, as these facts are easily and irrefutably verified.

I obtained the facts from the engine specifications, so no guessing was
required.


I'm so impressed.
It's not the mathematical genius (dividing an RPM number by 60) that impresses
me so much - the real genius is that this guy understood WHY he had to divide
by 60 (to convert minutes to seconds). Subtle - I'm sure few will have the
intellectual presence to grasp it!

Airbus writes:

Forget it dude - I'm not like you - will not make categorical statements
about subjects I know nothing about.

Then why are you making categorical statements about me?

I'm so impressed.

Why? Anyone can look up the specs, even though many people are too lazy to do
so.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Then why are you making categorical statements about me?

Who cares? You posted this statement: "I'm only here to discuss
aviation."

Why are you discussing yourself instead of aviation? Why do you
lie so much?
--
dgs