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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim E" wrote in message ... "Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net... John Lansford wrote: The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact. I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do with it. Watched the program. Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact. Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration. Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen in a single lump. Keith |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Carriere" wrote in message ...
"Ogden Johnson III" wrote in message ... Given the number of times the infamous "chicken cannon" has come up in these fora, your attention is directed to this [Sunday] evening's episode of "Mythbusters" on the Discovery cable channel [8:00 PM ET, repeated at 11:00 PM ET for the left coast] in which the intrepid Mythbusters team takes on the chicken cannon. Speaking of chickens, aircraft, and engines, this reminds me of a story a guy I used to work with told me. Not sure if it is true (it probably isn't), but damn funny nonetheless- During bird ingestion tests on some jet engine, the was an insufficient number of "thawed" baby chickens needed to simulate a flock of small birds. So somebody took out another case from the freezer, left it out to thaw, and meanwhile everybody went to lunch. Later on, once the chicks had thawed, the test was ran- birds shot in the running engine, the engine suffered severe damage and miserably failed the test. After the high speed film of the intake view was developed, some light was shed on the matter... a stray cat somehow found it's way into the breech of the chicken cannon. This probably happened while it was left unattended and everyone was at lunch. The cat must have been either celebrating its good fortune to find a free lunch, or sleeping it off the feast when the test was started up... followed by noise, confusion, a sharp acceleration, blast of air, and then nothing. I have a mental picture of a spread eagled cat inches in front of a compressor face. debunked at http://www.messybeast.com/urbancat.htm#cannon also a brief mention of cat version of myth at http://www.snopes.com/science/cannon.htm PS- I am a dog person. It's a scenario more likely to happen to a dog than a cat - e.g. to a terrier-type dog which is bred to go down holes after prey. Cats investigate spaces but tend not to crawl into tunnels (which is why it's so damn hard to get them into front opening pet carriers). Terriers not only willingly go into tunnels, they go into narrow tunnels they can't get out of and have to be dug out of. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Keith Willshaw
wrote: "Jim E" wrote in message ... "Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net... John Lansford wrote: The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact. I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do with it. Watched the program. Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact. Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration. Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen in a single lump. Indeed. Strange to relate, more windscreens are smashed by hailstones than by raindrops. I'd be interested to know what experiments, if any, the programme did in order to reach its conclusions. Obviously they are quite correct about kinetic energy and momentum, but transfer of momentum operates in many different ways depending very much on the nature of the materials in which the transfer occurs. -- "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun My .mac.com address is a spam sink. If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
:"Jim E" wrote in message ... : : Watched the program. : Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact. : Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration. : :Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a :big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen :in a single lump. Sounds to me like they left out a calculation of the energy of deformation (which doesn't go into the windscreen, but rather into the chicken). Frozen chicken deforms much less, so I would expect it to actually have greater energy of impact when compared to the non-frozen variety given the same initial impetus. Sort of like the 'crush space' on a car with a long hood. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Jim E" wrote in message ... "Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net... John Lansford wrote: The chicken gun exists. I've seen it in operation in fact. I'm guessing the myth in qustion is about the frozen vs non-frozen chickens.* It will be interesting to see what the Mythbusters guys do with it. Watched the program. Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact. Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration. Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen in a single lump. Maybe in the case of water. But I once talked to an engineer involved in developing the canopy for the Shorts Tucano and he basically said the same thing - frozen chicken, thawed chicken, made no difference to the damage caused. IIRC he said it was a 4lb chicken that was used as standard. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Herring wrote:
They're results were that a frozen chicken did no more damage than a room temperature chicken. They assumed a lot about impact damage with faulty data and testing. They should let me hit them with a frozen chicken and a thawed one and tell me which one hurt more. As someone else pointed out, the frozen one is going to act like a solid mass, while the thawed one is going to "explode" and deform when hitting the windshield. Besides, the birds aren't frozen when they hit the real planes... John Lansford -- The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage: http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"John Lansford" wrote in message
They're results were that a frozen chicken did no more damage than a room temperature chicken. They assumed a lot about impact damage with faulty data and testing. They should let me hit them with a frozen chicken and a thawed one and tell me which one hurt more. As someone else pointed out, the frozen one is going to act like a solid mass, while the thawed one is going to "explode" and deform when hitting the windshield. I watched the show. The target was a old Piper Cherokee class airframe. The frozen chicken behaved rather like a rifle bullet, making a smallish hole in the windscreen. The thawed chicken was more like a shotgun blast making a significantly larger hole. The hosts speculated the defomation of the thawed chicken made the difference against this very light weight material (never certified to survive an impact with anything g). I suspect that military grade windscreens (or those on commercial jet liners) would be made of "sterner stuff" and would behave quit differently. Besides, the birds aren't frozen when they hit the real planes... Indeed!!!!!!!!!!!! GGG Bill Kambic If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist, culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist, sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist, phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you to get over it. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Kinda made me wonder if Tyson and Pilgrim's Pride were held to the same
standard. If they are, you needn't worry about Plexiglas fragments in your McNuggets. g -- Mike Kanze 436 Greenbrier Road Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259 USA 650-726-7890 "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." -Mark Twain "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... [rest snipped] |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:53:56 -0500, Ogden Johnson III
wrote: Given the number of times the infamous "chicken cannon" has come up in these fora, your attention is directed to this [Sunday] evening's episode of "Mythbusters" on the Discovery cable channel [8:00 PM ET, repeated at 11:00 PM ET for the left coast] in which the intrepid Mythbusters team takes on the chicken cannon. For a link between this topic & matters naval, consider the use of down-sized versions of "chicken cannon" technology on model warships: http://www.rcwarships.com JM |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote: :"Jim E" wrote in message ... : : Watched the program. : Their conclusion, frozen or thawed makes no difference to impact. : Strictly a function of mass, velocity, and time of deceleration. : :Hmmm, I suspect when dealing with a kg of water it makes a :big difference to the fan blades if that water is frozen :in a single lump. Sounds to me like they left out a calculation of the energy of deformation (which doesn't go into the windscreen, but rather into the chicken). Frozen chicken deforms much less, so I would expect it to actually have greater energy of impact when compared to the non-frozen variety given the same initial impetus. Sort of like the 'crush space' on a car with a long hood. -- Their calculation based upon observed deflection of steel plate target upon impact (high speed camera for time of deceleration) Time of deflection of target was identicle in both cases. Amount of deflection however was not measured. This could be inducing error? Side note: This proved an excelent method of deboning a chicken. Jim E "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
chicken thief | Del Rawlins | Home Built | 3 | April 3rd 04 03:20 AM |
Britain Reveals Secret Weapon - Chicken Powered Nuclear Bomb ! | Ian | Military Aviation | 0 | April 2nd 04 03:18 PM |
WWII 20mm cannon in planes | zxcv | Military Aviation | 13 | March 10th 04 10:52 AM |
Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ? | championsleeper | Military Aviation | 77 | March 3rd 04 04:11 AM |
Development of British cannon ammuniation during WW2 | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 14 | December 29th 03 09:25 AM |