FlyingGiants Keyboard Deathmatch!!

[wizard]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	making either type of plane better is up to the designers/builders/buyers, not those from a higher Plane.

Was Kris trying to make a pun with this statement?

What higher Plane was he referring to. Was he referring to the Astral, Ethereal, the Divine? If so how many planes of existence are there? Depending on belief there are 4, 7, 13, or 31.

Or, was he referring to a heaver than air construction designed to travel in the atmosphere? If so was it at a greater altitude?

Or, was he referring to the condition created by the introduction of a chemical compound into the body that effects the mind?


It is amazing how many questions can be brought forth from one seemingly simple comment.

[Judge]

In some respects this is like when we argued as kids about which is the better way to die, freezing to death or burning to death. You're dead either way.

Wood and composite both have advantages and limitations, but in the short term neither one will really make a difference to the pilot. Over the long term, different advantages and disadvantages manifest themselves, and again, it is not clear that they matter except on a personal choice level.

Having said that, I stand by my earlier post in saying that composite does have the advantage of a higher degree of airframe trueness, consistency in reproduction, strength in flight, and relative immunity to environmental variations causing changes to the airframe. Which are directly related to performance.

But, I am not sure that many of us could possibly actually feel those advantages.

Now, if you want to talk thermodynamics, that is another whole ball of wax.

As we all know the first explicit statement of the first law of thermodynamics was given by Rudolf Clausius in 1850: "There is a state function E, called `energy', whose differential equals the work exchanged with the surroundings during an adiabatic process."

This can be simply expressed by the formula:



Casual inspection readily shows the brilliance of this posit. Related to IMAC planes it is clear that the energy function of a composite plane and its ability to exchange that energy with its surroundings is much greater than for an organic structure of a wood airframe. Proof of this is left as an exercise for the reader.

Of course the second law of thermodynamics is also readily applicable to IMAC planes. As a refresher for those of you who may have forgotten the second law it says:

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy. In simple terms, it is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system which is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how far along this evening-out process has progressed..

Mathematically stated:



Now we can easily see by casual inspection that the drive towards a higher degree of entropy is greater for wood than for composite. Meaning of course that wood will tend to deteriorate into a useless pile of randomly arranged atoms at a much higher rate than will a composite structure. This of course would be catastrophic were it to happen during a flight, but even so, it will be no less bothersome if it were to occur between contests. Clearly composite is the better construction from the perspective of the 2nd law.

It is important to be able to account for the useful work that can be converted within the system of interest, an IMAC plane in our case. This is easily derived from the following:


With the follow on equation:



Combined we can easily see that while useful work is an important quantity to extrapolate from our system dynamics it can in no way be considered a greater value variable than the non-useful work many postulate as having equivalent value. Again, proof of this concept is left as an exercise for the reader. But suffice it to say that with respect to an IMAC plane it is a clear fact that composite aircraft have the advantage once again.

I am sorry to have potentially bored everyone once again with such trivial explanations of what is plainly obvious to even the most casual observer, but sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious for those that may have lost touch with the basic precepts of the argument.

Thank you for your indulgence.

[madmax]

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

[madmax]

Hey Krissy, you better get in here dude, Judge is cleaning your clock!! LOLOLOL

[All Thumbs]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	In some respects this is like when we argued as kids about which is the better way to die, freezing to death or burning to death. You're dead either way. Wood and composite both have advantages and limitations, but in the short term neither one will really make a difference to the pilot. Over the long term, different advantages and disadvantages manifest themselves, and again, it is not clear that they matter except on a personal choice level. Having said that, I stand by my earlier post in saying that composite does have the advantage of a higher degree of airframe trueness, consistency in reproduction, strength in flight, and relative immunity to environmental variations causing changes to the airframe. Which are directly related to performance. But, I am not sure that many of us could possibly actually feel those advantages. Now, if you want to talk thermodynamics, that is another whole ball of wax. As we all know the first explicit statement of the first law of thermodynamics was given by Rudolf Clausius in 1850: "There is a state function E, called `energy', whose differential equals the work exchanged with the surroundings during an adiabatic process." This can be simply expressed by the formula: Casual inspection readily shows the brilliance of this posit. Related to IMAC planes it is clear that the energy function of a composite plane and its ability to exchange that energy with its surroundings is much greater than for an organic structure of a wood airframe. Proof of this is left as an exercise for the reader. Of course the second law of thermodynamics is also readily applicable to IMAC planes. As a refresher for those of you who may have forgotten the second law it says: The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy. In simple terms, it is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system which is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how far along this evening-out process has progressed.. Mathematically stated: Now we can easily see by casual inspection that the drive towards a higher degree of entropy is greater for wood than for composite. Meaning of course that wood will tend to deteriorate into a useless pile of randomly arranged atoms at a much higher rate than will a composite structure. This of course would be catastrophic were it to happen during a flight, but even so, it will be no less bothersome if it were to occur between contests. Clearly composite is the better construction from the perspective of the 2nd law. It is important to be able to account for the useful work that can be converted within the system of interest, an IMAC plane in our case. This is easily derived from the following: With the follow on equation: Combined we can easily see that while useful work is an important quantity to extrapolate from our system dynamics it can in no way be considered a greater value variable than the non-useful work many postulate as having equivalent value. Again, proof of this concept is left as an exercise for the reader. But suffice it to say that with respect to an IMAC plane it is a clear fact that composite aircraft have the advantage once again. I am sorry to have potentially bored everyone once again with such trivial explanations of what is plainly obvious to even the most casual observer, but sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious for those that may have lost touch with the basic precepts of the argument. Thank you for your indulgence.

Yeah.. I have a question... WHAT? You know, the Geico Cave Man response! I would say score another for Mr. Malvey. However, this one's got a higher K-Factor (keyboard factor) than the last response.

[Andy540T]

Seems to me that Kris is on the ropes.

[All Thumbs]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Andy540T
	Seems to me that Kris is on the ropes.

Seems to me "The Kris" has left the building!

[wizard]

	Quote: Originally Posted by John Murdoch
	Seems to me "The Kris" has left the building!

I wouldn't count Kris out yet. He might be at that dreaded place called work, or out in the shop making measurements of the Frenzy to support his next statement.

[All Thumbs]

	Quote: Originally Posted by wizard
	I wouldn't count Kris out yet. He might be at that dreaded place called work, or out in the shop making measurements of the Frenzy to support his next statement.

Wizard.. You're probably right. If it were me against Judge, I'd be gathering a team of professors to figure out what he just wrote. Then I'd make darned sure my spell check worked. As we all know, it's those little half point deductions here and there that really have the affect on the final score.

[Dangerous Dan]

I think KrisW is out shooting Video with his cameraman Darth Vader. Visual Aids always gain pointers in presenting your Argument.

[GMoney]

[JimC-MD]

Hmmmmm, Judge has stepped it up!

I only have time to score one of these figures because I do not have a scribe here.



This figure shows an up line with poor entry and exit lines, and as you can see it was not vertical. The second aspect of the figure shows an inverted goldfish into an outside avalanche with a poorly executed snap over a torque roll that weather-vaned into the prevailing wind. Not a very clean figure but I have to agree that even with the downgrades it should be equal to or greater than a zero.

Nice job Judge!

tehe