<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Jeez, Dino – </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Are we getting ready to propose thinking about
pattern in the same terms as ballet again? </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I still can’t deal w/ the mental
picture of Dave (or most of the rest of us for that matter…) in a tutu! …
</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> discussion-request@nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org] <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>On
Behalf Of </span></b>DaveL322@comcast.net<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Friday, October 22, 2004
2:02 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> discussion@nsrca.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: prop formula </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>......and abundantly allitervative as
welll............</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>-------------- Original message -------------- <br>
<br>
> Here we are in an event which could easily be mistaken for highly
technical in <br>
> nature ... but it's really an aerial beauty contest. <br>
> <br>
> Feeling foolishly philosophical <br>
> <br>
> Dean Pappas <br>
> Sr. Design Engineer <br>
> Kodeos Communications <br>
> 111 Corporate Blvd. <br>
> South Plainfield, N.J. 07080 <br>
> (908) 222-7817 phone <br>
> (908) 222-2392 fax <br>
> d.pappas@kodeos.com <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message----- <br>
> From: discussion-request@nsrca.org <br>
> [mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Jeff H. Snider <br>
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 12:03 AM <br>
> To: discussion@nsrca.org <br>
> Subject: Re: prop formula <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I don't want to try and decide what portion of any endeavor is art <br>
> and what is science. The Wright brothers were dilettantes very short <br>
> on art but long on luck. Any less lucky and physically talented <br>
> people would have failed to fly that contraption of theirs. A great <br>
> deal of money and time was recently spent demonstrating that fact, <br>
> unfortunately for all the people involved. (If you ever have a <br>
> chance to visit the Curtiss Museum in Hammondsport NY, along with <br>
> a huge and wonderful display of aviation history there's an infectious <br>
> undercurrent of distain for all things Wright.) <br>
> <br>
> I'm in favor of art, and I believe a good scientist is just a kind <br>
> of artist who keeps good notes and follows a very strict methodology. <br>
> What I said was "Maybe by then science will have more fully displaced
<br>
> art." Meaning with a full molecule-by-molecule simulator a scientist <br>
> could create and test a new airfoil in under a minute, instead of <br>
> weeks painstakingly crafting a model and testing it in a wind tunnel, <br>
> so we can accumulate a lot more facts and rely less on intuition. <br>
> Science never eliminates art, but I'd rely on facts and technology <br>
> in place of guesses any day of the week. <br>
> <br>
> I haven't in fact seen a good Analog Engineer. I didn't know they still <br>
> existed. But then I've been a software guy too long and all that <br>
> hardware stuff just appears on the loading dock courtesy of FedEx. <br>
> Nobody actually builds it, do they? <br>
> <br>
> I am indeed flying Intermediate next season. I'm desperately trying <br>
> to remember all the maneuvers in the correct order before competing <br>
> this weekend at BARKS. Thank heaven for the simulator. It has <br>
> paid for itself in YS 30% fuel alone by now! <br>
> <br>
> -Jeff <br>
> <br>
> P.S., <br>
> In terms of progress and a by-the-molecules simulation of air, the <br>
> numbers don't leave much room for error. Take the number of molecules <br>
> in a liter of air (3e22), the radius of the space a molecule has <br>
> to itself at an instant of time (30 angstroms), the speed of the <br>
> molecules (3e12 angstroms/second), and you find the need to do 3e33 <br>
> calculations per second. Today we can do 3e9 calculations per <br>
> second, so we need to get our computers 1e24 times faster to compute <br>
> this liter of air in realtime. Of course it takes more than one <br>
> calculation per molecule, and conversely of course really smart <br>
> algorithms can reduce the number of necessary calculations by maybe <br>
> a factor of billion. But just to keep things simple, if computers <br>
> double in speed every 18 months, and it takes 80 doublings to reach <br>
> 1e24, that's 120 years. If I'm off by a factor of a billion, it <br>
> takes 75 years. And unless we forget the "supercomputers", the <br>
> supposed fastest in the world was running at 36 teraflops in <br>
> September: 1000 times faster than today's desktop computers, meaning <br>
> the scientists get there 15 years ahead of us desktop computer guys. <br>
> If I live to be a really old scientist, maybe I'll see it happen. <br>
> For now I'm just trying to leave myself enough space for a half <br>
> decent cobra with half rolls and get my outside loop to end anywhere <br>
> near the same altitude where it started. <br>
> <br>
> P.P.S., <br>
> To take the fun out of a seemingly silly assertion and simultaneously <br>
> demonstrating my analytical bent one last time: Supposing I stretch <br>
> my fuel to get 60 minutes flight time out of a gallon (this is a <br>
> 140DZ we're talking about), and supposing I get a great deal of <br>
> $16.50 per gallon on my fuel (this is YS 30% fuel we're talking <br>
> about), I only need to have flown 12 hours on the simulator to equal <br>
> its cost in fuel. I would guess I average at least 20 minutes a <br>
> day, so it pays for itself in fuel alone in 36 days. <br>
> <br>
> </span></font></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>