"various", eh?

From: otnmbrd
Date: 9/1/2004 12:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:



JAXAshby wrote:
over the knee. the definition was for your ignorant sake. I knew the term
correctly a long bit ago.

G Knowing the "term" correctly, is one thing. Being able to apply the
term to various situations seems to be beyond your abilities.
I'd hate to see what you'd do if I sent you to stand by the "forward
spring".

otn

Yup, Doodles, "various" ..... course now we have to wait and see which
definition ( the simple, complex, or interpretive) you will use to
create this argument BG
Btw Which line WOULD you go to, to "stand by the fwd spring"?

otn

JAXAshby wrote:
"various", eh?


From: otnmbrd
Date: 9/1/2004 12:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:



JAXAshby wrote:

over the knee. the definition was for your ignorant sake. I knew the term
correctly a long bit ago.

G Knowing the "term" correctly, is one thing. Being able to apply the
term to various situations seems to be beyond your abilities.
I'd hate to see what you'd do if I sent you to stand by the "forward
spring".

otn

On 01 Sep 2004 11:41:09 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
jimmy, look at the blades. if you can't see what they look like and what they
do, look at a prop that feathers and you **should** see the difference. if
still not, ask a dockboy to explain it to you.



I had hoped you would have a point, and debate it, rather than simply
sliding into insults.

I guess I was hoping for too much.


From: Jim Richardson
Date: 9/1/2004 5:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 01 Sep 2004 02:03:35 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
the blades are curved, and rather dramatically so.


So what? feathering a prop doesn't require that there be *no* drag, it's
a way to reduce drag, not eliminate it.

The autoprop blades rotate to parallel to the axis of the shaft, how is
that not feathering?



The blades rotate until they are inline with the shaft axis, how is this
not feathering?

take a look at the blades. they rotate and thus *reduce* drag, but they
certainly don't "feather".




I have, the blades rotate to line up with the axis of the shaft, how is
that *not* feathering?

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed... Oh wait, he
does










--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Never be in the company of anyone with whom you would not want to die.
-- Fremen Saying










--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly.
It just happens to be very selective about who its friends are.
-- Kyle Hearn

On 01 Sep 2004 11:38:55 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
no it doesn't. take a look at those blades and you will understand, probably.
if not, ask any passing yardworker or dockboy to explain it to you.


Even the definition of feathering that you yourself brought into this
discussion fits the autoprop.




From: Jim Richardson
Date: 9/1/2004 5:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 01 Sep 2004 02:28:28 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
So,Doodles, what you are saying, is that unless the blades are totally
flat, the term "feathering" can not be used?

otn

let me help improve, over the knee, with your understanding of English
words.

v. feath·ered, feath·er·ing, feath·ers

v. tr.
To turn (an oar blade) almost horizontal as it is carried back after each
stroke.

To alter the pitch of (a propeller) so that the chords of the blades are
parallel with the line of flight.


Well, that fits the autoprop, thanks.

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
-- Calvin










--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Instrument of Darwin

jim, if you choose to redefine every English word to suit your fancy, there is
no debate possible. green is carrots, rum is gravel, curved prop blades are
straight. makes no room for discussion.

you bought one and are trying to convince yourself it was a wise "investment".
Just like gold will reach $2,000 an ounce six weeks after the election.

you are a true-believer, jim, and you pushed the English language around to
form it to your convictions.

who could debate that?

From: Jim Richardson
Date: 9/2/2004 4:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 01 Sep 2004 11:41:09 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
jimmy, look at the blades. if you can't see what they look like and what
they
do, look at a prop that feathers and you **should** see the difference. if
still not, ask a dockboy to explain it to you.



I had hoped you would have a point, and debate it, rather than simply
sliding into insults.

I guess I was hoping for too much.


From: Jim Richardson
Date: 9/1/2004 5:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 01 Sep 2004 02:03:35 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
the blades are curved, and rather dramatically so.


So what? feathering a prop doesn't require that there be *no* drag, it's
a way to reduce drag, not eliminate it.

The autoprop blades rotate to parallel to the axis of the shaft, how is
that not feathering?



The blades rotate until they are inline with the shaft axis, how is
this
not feathering?

take a look at the blades. they rotate and thus *reduce* drag, but
they
certainly don't "feather".




I have, the blades rotate to line up with the axis of the shaft, how is
that *not* feathering?

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed... Oh wait, he
does










--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Never be in the company of anyone with whom you would not want to die.
-- Fremen Saying










--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly.
It just happens to be very selective about who its friends are.
-- Kyle Hearn

and green is lollipops to a true-believer, jim.

look up the term "cognitive dissidense" (pardon the terbil spelink, but you
ain't gonna look the psychological underpinnings to your behavior anyway)




From: Jim Richardson
Date: 9/2/2004 4:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 01 Sep 2004 11:38:55 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
no it doesn't. take a look at those blades and you will understand,
probably.
if not, ask any passing yardworker or dockboy to explain it to you.


Even the definition of feathering that you yourself brought into this
discussion fits the autoprop.




From: Jim Richardson
Date: 9/1/2004 5:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 01 Sep 2004 02:28:28 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
So,Doodles, what you are saying, is that unless the blades are totally
flat, the term "feathering" can not be used?

otn

let me help improve, over the knee, with your understanding of English
words.

v. feath·ered, feath·er·ing, feath·ers

v. tr.
To turn (an oar blade) almost horizontal as it is carried back after each
stroke.

To alter the pitch of (a propeller) so that the chords of the blades are
parallel with the line of flight.


Well, that fits the autoprop, thanks.

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
-- Calvin










--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Instrument of Darwin

On 02 Sep 2004 12:14:22 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
jim, if you choose to redefine every English word to suit your fancy, there is
no debate possible. green is carrots, rum is gravel, curved prop blades are
straight. makes no room for discussion.


The definition you yourself provided for feathering, fits the autoprop.
The blades rotate to inline with the fluid flow. How is that not
feathering?


you bought one and are trying to convince yourself it was a wise "investment".
Just like gold will reach $2,000 an ounce six weeks after the election.

you are a true-believer, jim, and you pushed the English language around to
form it to your convictions.

who could debate that?


Well, given that your assumption that I bought one, is in error, the
rest of your "logic" proceding from that error, is equally flawed.

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux: There is no conspiracy... yet
-- Matthew Adair

On 02 Sep 2004 12:17:42 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
and green is lollipops to a true-believer, jim.

look up the term "cognitive dissidense" (pardon the terbil spelink, but you
ain't gonna look the psychological underpinnings to your behavior anyway)


There's a trend here, When JAXAshby loses a debate on the technical
issues, he starts flinging insults.

noted.



--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Instruction ends in the schoolroom -- but education
ends only with life. -- Publilius Syrus.

Subject: What are the pros and cons of a folding prop?
From: Jim Richardson


I had hoped you would have a point, and debate it, rather than simply
sliding into insults.

I guess I was hoping for too much.


He had neither a point to make nor the ability or interest to debate it.
As per usual, Doodles was just trying to "stir the pot".
He probably has less experience with feathering props than I do, and I have
none .... only used to "zero pitch" type props.

Shen

no, the chord does. which word don't you understand?

From: Jim Richardson
Date: 9/2/2004 1:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 02 Sep 2004 12:14:22 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
jim, if you choose to redefine every English word to suit your fancy, there
is
no debate possible. green is carrots, rum is gravel, curved prop blades
are
straight. makes no room for discussion.


The definition you yourself provided for feathering, fits the autoprop.
The blades rotate to inline with the fluid flow. How is that not
feathering?


you bought one and are trying to convince yourself it was a wise
"investment".
Just like gold will reach $2,000 an ounce six weeks after the election.

you are a true-believer, jim, and you pushed the English language around to
form it to your convictions.

who could debate that?


Well, given that your assumption that I bought one, is in error, the
rest of your "logic" proceding from that error, is equally flawed.

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux: There is no conspiracy... yet
-- Matthew Adair