Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure"

Mxsmanic wrote:
cavelamb himself writes:

Or else I won't Like You any nore.

I'm not looking for friends. I'm only here to discuss aviation.

Bull****. You are hear to argue about aviation discussions and I understand
completly why you do it. It is because you have some psycological need to
argue and if you did it the way you do here you would get your ass beat.

There are many real life environments where you might see stroboscopic
effects without there being a flashing lamp. The optical 'opposite'
like when you've seen wheels seem to move backwards is if your line of
sight can be mechanically inturrupted somehow, or even systematiclly
vibrated or jarred. Coming up on a truck, for example, if your view of
the front wheel is influenced by the lug nuts on an aft wheel, can
offer that impression.

A badly out of balance wheel on your car, moving your head at the
right frequency, can do the same thing.

There are probably other circumstances as well, but I can't at the
moment think of one where steady state viewing of a rotating wheel or
the like without something like a pseudo shutter influencing your
vision would cause it.

So no, your vision is not defective. Or more correctly, it may be
defective, but not because of what you've noted in your post!

In a previous article, Mxsmanic said:
Paul Tomblin writes:
Wikipedia quotes multiple scientific papers. So far all you've quoted is
yourself.

Wikipedia usually quotes, at best, a number of sources, which may or may not
be reliable, be they scientific papers or not.

Ok, I'll rephrase that so even you can understand it: "This particular
Wikipedia article quotes multiple scientific papers, all of which prove
that you're talking out your ass. So far, all you've offered in rebuttal
is your own proven track record of being wrong about everything to do with
everything, and your own failed and pathetic life."

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
I tried staying in during a fire alarm some years ago. Unfortunately the
fire warden wouldn't accept 'A real hacker goes down with his newsfeed'
as an excuse. -- Peter Gutman

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
cavelamb himself wrote:



So, which way is the naked lady spinning?

http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html



I called it up and saw her rotating CCW for about a minute even after
bleinking and looking around the room and then back at the pic she was still
CCW.

Then I looked up and book marked the page and and then sent a link to my
wife and when I looked back she was CW. And just now I popped back over and
she is still CW.




HaHa!

I can make her do the "Twist", but it makes my eyes hurt...

"Mx the Eunuch" wrote in message
...
Yes - I have a name writes:

I'm sure I've seen wheels on cars that appear to be moving backwards.
Are my
eyes defective?

No, but your memory is imperfect. You've never seen that in real life,
only
on TV and in films, or under stroboscopic lighting.

I saw it again today driving to work.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote

I called it up and saw her rotating CCW for about a minute even after
bleinking and looking around the room and then back at the pic she was
still CCW.

Then I looked up and book marked the page and and then sent a link to my
wife and when I looked back she was CW. And just now I popped back over
and she is still CW.

I looked at first and saw CCW and after a while, I looked at the foot and
saw CW and scan upwards and still see CW... But if I look away and back at
the top, I see CCW again.
--
Jim in NC

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

So, which way is the naked lady spinning?

http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html

Interesting. I kept seeing her CW, and tried it several times, and was truly
beginning to wonder. But then suddenly she switched. At first it seemed to
be a function of time with me, but then I tried an experiment base on the
angry face example. I put my thumb up half way between the screen and my
eye, and had much better luck switching her back and forth. Seems depth of
field or focal point seems to have a big effect with me. See if it works for
you.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

I'm not looking for friends. I'm only here to discuss aviation.

Bull****. You are hear to argue about aviation discussions and I
understand completly why you do it. It is because you have some
psycological need to argue and if you did it the way you do here you
would get your ass beat.

So whats that make you?














Besides being a bad speller...

On Dec 4, 8:25 pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Harry K wrote:



snip

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
After thinking that over...
It gets worse. There will be multiple rpm that will show the effect
under strobe conditions. With a 2 blade prop it can be sychronizing
every 1/2 rev. 3-blade prop every 1/3 or 2/3 rev, etc. in addition to
synching on the harmonics.

It isn't that bad.

Synchronization only occurs on integral fractions and engine RPM is
usually 1000 and about 2700 RPM so the possibilities are limited.

For a 2 bladed prop:

7200/2= 3600 - 1800 RPM

7200/3= 2400 - 2400 RPM and 1200 RPM

7200/4= 1800 - 1800 RPM and 900 RPM

etc.

I leave it to someone else to show how many blades you see at each RPM.

--
Jim Pennino
Since the prop appears stationary, you would see all the blades.

Yes, but how many virtual blades will you see?

Simple example: You are illuminating a 2 bladed prop running at 1000 RPM
with a strobe light pulsing at 4000 pulses per minute.

In the time between pulses, the prop makes 1/4 of a turn.

The prop is therefor lite up every 1/4 turn and it appears as though
the prop has 4 blades.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nope. The prop appears stationary and you see only the two.

What you see is the complete image (frame), not a composite of 4
'frames'.

Harry K

Mxsmanic wrote:

I'm only here to discuss aviation.

You are not, you lying vermin. You have posted dozens of messages in
aviation-related newsgroups that have nothing to do with discussing
aviation. You're a tedious, useless, off-topic troll.

Now shut the hell up, loser-boi.
--
dgs