Laser beams being aimed at airliners?

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:34:10 -0600, "Marty"
wrote:


--SNIP---
As a sound tech, I have had the opportunity to stand in front of some very
large sub cabinets. These buggers would blow your clothes similar to
having
your back to a 40mph+ wind.

I have an old Fender Super Twin Reverb concert amp with 395 watts of
peak music power out. 195 watts RMS. (6, 6L6s) I can guarantee when
it's cranked it'll snap your pant legs like a blast out of an air hose
when you pop a low E string.

You bet!
What I left out was that it wasn't a constant "wind". As you know it's the
back and forth of the subs that make your pants snap. The subs I routinely
use are 8 cabinets (Peavy UDHs if your into it) w/4 16" black widows
ea.,using a 2kw Crown amp to drive each cabinet.

No collapsed lungs after this many years, but it will give you an
upset stomach with too many low notes.

Ah Ha! So that's what it was! ;-)

They have left welts on my legs from my jeans snapping on my skin, but I
never lost a lung tho.

What say?? Speak up.

g
Marty

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Marty wrote:
"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message
newsQwEd.4$bX4.2@fed1read03...

Marty wrote:

"Edward Green" wrote in message
egroups.com...
SNIP
Sounds like a job for Myth Busters

Buster isn't equipped for that sort of test; they'd have to go to pig
parts again (remember the cola-pop rocks ep?).

Oh yea, I remember.
They don't always "recreate" accurately either. The other nite saw them
testing the "thawed vs frozen chickens" thing. Thru an airplanes windscreen
it may have been OK, but there would be (I think) a considerable difference
in a jet engine test just from the frozen bird being solid.

I've never heard a chicken-gun/engine version.

I have heard the "Myth" as the jet engine not a windscreen. That test may
have been cost prohibitive.

Uh, yeah, considering that pretty much anything bigger
than a cockroach inhaled into a turbine _will_ destroy it
catastrophically. Obviously even a thawed chicken will too,
so no point.

As for acuracy, they never did test actual bird-rated
"military" canopies, but they ain't cheap. But in their
defense, for my money the final test with multiple sheets of
glass pretty much proves that frozen birds have more
penetrating power.

I still find them entertaining and thats probably their main goal.

Well yeah. They're a real example of "infotainment" or
"edutainment". I'm considering getting their DVD's for my
grandkids.

Mark L. Fergerson

"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message
news:9gREd.1988$bX4.999@fed1read03...
I have heard the "Myth" as the jet engine not a windscreen. That test may
have been cost prohibitive.
--SNIP--
Uh, yeah, considering that pretty much anything bigger than a cockroach
inhaled into a turbine _will_ destroy it catastrophically. Obviously even
a thawed chicken will too, so no point.

Hmmm, I thought they could take a hit from a bird.

As for acuracy, they never did test actual bird-rated "military"
canopies, but they ain't cheap. But in their defense, for my money the
final test with multiple sheets of glass pretty much proves that frozen
birds have more penetrating power.

It was interesting tho, that where a thawed bird went thru, there was more
physical damage. Largely due to the flattening of mass prior to penetration.
The frozen bird went farther into the fuse'. Standard ballistics really.
Solid vs semi solid, blah, blah.

I still find them entertaining and thats probably their main goal.

Well yeah. They're a real example of "infotainment" or "edutainment".
I'm considering getting their DVD's for my grandkids.

Mark L. Fergerson

You and I have heard a great many of these myths. The Chevy with a JATO is a
good one. They could easily have disproved that one with basic physics but
it wasn't entertaining that way. It was, IMHO, entertaining to see it
attempted. I mainly watched it to see how they mounted it so that it would
drive the car rather than "gut" it on it's way thru. ;-)
If I had kids (or grandkids) I'd probably ruin the entertainment for them.
My anal, nit-pick narrative would most likely **** 'em off.
Hee Hee

Marty

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:24:31 -0600, "Marty"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:34:10 -0600, "Marty"
wrote:


--SNIP---
As a sound tech, I have had the opportunity to stand in front of some very
large sub cabinets. These buggers would blow your clothes similar to
having
your back to a 40mph+ wind.

I have an old Fender Super Twin Reverb concert amp with 395 watts of
peak music power out. 195 watts RMS. (6, 6L6s) I can guarantee when
it's cranked it'll snap your pant legs like a blast out of an air hose
when you pop a low E string.

You bet!
What I left out was that it wasn't a constant "wind". As you know it's the
back and forth of the subs that make your pants snap. The subs I routinely
use are 8 cabinets (Peavy UDHs if your into it) w/4 16" black widows
ea.,using a 2kw Crown amp to drive each cabinet.

You are setting the volume for the back of the crowd so they can
*feel* the low notes and hear them over all the racket made by the
crowd.

I can't imagine how there can be any musicians left who have played an
outdoor concert that can still hear.

I just played for fun, although my guitar teacher played the circuit
and called me up on stage to play a few times, but these were night
clubs not open air concerts.

When I was a lot younger and on the road going to computer schools for
the company I worked for, I used to hunt up the music stores that
mainly catered to the small groups that might end up playing open air
concerts.

I'd go in, try out a few guitars, start a few blues cord progressions
and it wouldn't be long at all before we'd have a combo going. The
store owners liked it as they'd get a pretty good crowd that way and I
got to play a lot of guitars I couldn't afford to own. :-))

I was setting there by myself one day just running through some
progressions and riffs (kinda trading 8's by myself) when the store
owner walked over. I thought he was going to turn the amp off, but he
*cranked* that sucker. :-)) That was in a store just north of
Philadelphia and a bit south of Willow Grove. Nuther story but I
managed to spend an afternoon loose on the base with my cameras.
Yes there were areas I was told to stay well away from, but I managed
to get a guided tour trough some of those (without cameras).

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

No collapsed lungs after this many years, but it will give you an
upset stomach with too many low notes.

Ah Ha! So that's what it was! ;-)

They have left welts on my legs from my jeans snapping on my skin, but I
never lost a lung tho.

What say?? Speak up.

g
Marty

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Joe Morris" wrote in message
...

An argument against the idea that it's a new telescope owner is that
the green laser pens are typically over $100 (vs. maybe $10-15 for
a typical red laser pointer). Also, the green pointers are mostly
used in amateur astronomy by someone knowledgable about the sky,
who (hopefully) has a bit of common sense.

Apparently David Banach of New Jersey didn't have any.



the program's
been running for over 50 years and I would hate to have it shut down.


On the bright side, they didn't need lasers 50 years ago. :-(

Marty wrote:
"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message
news:9gREd.1988$bX4.999@fed1read03...

I have heard the "Myth" as the jet engine not a windscreen. That test may
have been cost prohibitive.

--SNIP--

Uh, yeah, considering that pretty much anything bigger than a cockroach
inhaled into a turbine _will_ destroy it catastrophically. Obviously even
a thawed chicken will too, so no point.

Hmmm, I thought they could take a hit from a bird.

Apparently my info is a tad out of date, frinst:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/fi...t_strikes.html

Note that "uncontained failure" means bits of the engine
departing the nacelle at right angles to the engine axis
(usually at high velocities). But few complete destruction
events are seen; apparently repaired turbines are now
considered trustworthy. Back in my military days, the whole
thing would be replaced if even a single blade showed a nick
or crack, just in case something could cause later failure
at a "Murphy moment", per:

http://www.testdevices.com/lcf_page.htm

If you're not on dial-up, watch the next one. In the
"make it fail" spirit of Mythbusters, Rolls-Royce uses a
"small explosive charge" to blow a blade loose from one of
their engines in a static test and it _doesn't_ blow itself
all over the place:

http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2002/1510.mpg

Some other fun stuff:

http://www.elchineroconcepts.com/el_...aft_action.htm

As for acuracy, they never did test actual bird-rated "military"
canopies, but they ain't cheap. But in their defense, for my money the
final test with multiple sheets of glass pretty much proves that frozen
birds have more penetrating power.

It was interesting tho, that where a thawed bird went thru, there was more
physical damage. Largely due to the flattening of mass prior to penetration.

Also the test fixture couldn't have been what I'd
consider solid enough; I mean, the first and _fourth_ (IIRC)
plates broke, but not the second etc? WTF?

The frozen bird went farther into the fuse'. Standard ballistics really.
Solid vs semi solid, blah, blah.

Yep, but not obvious in the earlier tests where
frozen/thawed birds did much the same damage.

I still find them entertaining and thats probably their main goal.

Well yeah. They're a real example of "infotainment" or "edutainment".
I'm considering getting their DVD's for my grandkids.

You and I have heard a great many of these myths. The Chevy with a JATO is a
good one. They could easily have disproved that one with basic physics but
it wasn't entertaining that way. It was, IMHO, entertaining to see it
attempted. I mainly watched it to see how they mounted it so that it would
drive the car rather than "gut" it on it's way thru. ;-)

Also, in the version I most often hear the rocket from a
Sidewinder is bolted _under_ the car, making it go airborne
at the first bump in the pavement. But where's the fun in
that? ;)

If I had kids (or grandkids) I'd probably ruin the entertainment for them.
My anal, nit-pick narrative would most likely **** 'em off.

I plan on trying to keep my commentary to asking them if
what they see is "reasonable". ;)

Mark L. Fergerson

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:29:42 -0500, Corky Scott
wrote in
::


Hasn't anyone else been following this?

The FAA has issued a new Advisory Circular addressing this subject:
http://www.faa.gov/newsroom/AC_70-2.pdf

I'm just shaking my head at his immaturity. He didn't
have the intent to hurt anyone, he was just showing off, not knowing it
was a really bad idea.

I know it's an old post, but I disagree and I'm glad they threw the book at
that weenie. He tried to blame it on his kid, he'd seen the stories about
concerns for safety, and he did konw it was a bad idea but he still did it,
deliberately. Numerous copycats since have started doing the same thing.

Sure, it's a prank for most, just like dropping rocks off the bridge over the
freeway. But it's stupid, and malicious, and there's no useful or positive
purpose for doing it. A woman died last year in Council Bluffs when teens were
dropping landscaping bricks off a bridge and one went through the window of a
van driving by underneath and caught her in the head. They didn't intend to
hurt anyone either.

"StellaStar" wrote in message
I'm just shaking my head at his immaturity. He didn't
have the intent to hurt anyone, he was just showing off, not knowing it
was a really bad idea.

I know it's an old post, but I disagree and I'm glad they threw the book
at
that weenie. He tried to blame it on his kid, he'd seen the stories about
concerns for safety, and he did konw it was a bad idea but he still did
it,
deliberately.

He'll be lots of use to his kid when he's in prison. He didn't pose a
threat to anyone. Don't believe the hype.

moo

He'll be lots of use to his kid when he's in prison. He didn't pose a
threat to anyone. Don't believe the hype.

moo


He did pose a threat, would have posed a greater one if he had access to a more
powerful laser without any qualms, and his kid's better off without that kind
of example. I don't read hype.