Florida Keyz wrote:

Somebody farted in the group again,, opps, Jax is back!


For someone who adds absolutely no value to this newsgroup, you sure
whine a lot. Wouldn't you be happier reading some nonsense over on AOL?





Email sent to is never read.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
So, you don't know what it means either?

it has no meaning in this context, though some semblence of meaning comes
about
at higher orders of magnitude of hull speeds, say at 10,000x to 100,000x,
or
1,000,000x hull speed.

snip

There it is ... Jax in full flower; a thing of beauty, really. I had to read
this passage several times to appreciate the awesome power of a full-on Jax
statement. This may go down as one of the best to date. I am truly surprised
that nobody else picked up on this.

I am used to seeing nominal hull speeds of perhaps seven or ten knots. For
some ships, maybe 30 knots.

In JaxWorld, the designs (and discussions related to design) includes speeds
of ten thousand to a million times "nominal" hull speed.
Truth be told, I have *never* before contemplated what happens at "higher
orders of magnitude of hull speeds!"

Tell me Jax, when you are working with designs like this, what do you budget
for propulsive power? Are there any special problems you encounter making
the New York to London run in under a second? Does the sonic boom present
any special design problems?
Do you have any problem with the sea boiling away under your keel? For that
matter, what material do you build your hulls out of?

Considering that at a speed of 7 million knots, you may have some, um,
special problems picking up radio waves, do you practice dead reckoning as
you travel?

Jax, I am *so* glad you're back.

Mark Browne
P.S. Decisions, decisions? Do you dig a deeper hole or admit you were
spouting off by typing without thinking?

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:45:20 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

[snip]

Why do you low-brain-output types think *every* snotty little insult you
post is worth some effort in response on the part of the recipient? If
the recipient declines to get down in the crap with you, the response
almost always is a variation of what John-boy here has posted.

You fellow really need to move on, get a life, get a wife, get a knife,
get a fife...something that will keep your hands occupied, because you
sure as hell aren't going to make it on clever.

And yet, strangely, here you are replying. Again.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:41:38 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:11:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:00:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:


Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that
anonymous person as being somehow factual.

As opposed to your personal attacks on me?

You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once*
recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats?
If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well,
maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you.


I believe this is the second or third time we're reading this screed of
yours, and there have been others.

This would be the fourth time you've repeated your remarks, I believe.

Nope. Once.

Move on, fellow. Stop perseverating. If you can't, perhaps you should do
something about it. The perseverating, I mean.

Harry Krause wrote:


Why do you low-brain-output types think *every* snotty little insult you
post is worth some effort in response on the part of the recipient? If
the recipient declines to get down in the crap with you, the response
almost always is a variation of what John-boy here has posted.

You fellow really need to move on, get a life, get a wife, get a knife,
get a fife...something that will keep your hands occupied, because you
sure as hell aren't going to make it on clever.

ut oh, he's PMSing again.

What's wrong krause, political winds not blowing the way you want them too?

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

hey, squathead, what part of English don't you understand?

the statement *clearly* says "climbing the bow wave" is of no consequence at or
near hull speed.

even with 7 years, and counting, of high school, yo-yo, you should have caught
that. Now, put the comic away and get back to study hall.

From: "Mark Browne"
Date: 1/21/2004 1:18 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: fRoPb.110565$I06.758769@attbi_s01


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
So, you don't know what it means either?

it has no meaning in this context, though some semblence of meaning comes
about
at higher orders of magnitude of hull speeds, say at 10,000x to 100,000x,
or
1,000,000x hull speed.

snip

There it is ... Jax in full flower; a thing of beauty, really. I had to read
this passage several times to appreciate the awesome power of a full-on Jax
statement. This may go down as one of the best to date. I am truly surprised
that nobody else picked up on this.

I am used to seeing nominal hull speeds of perhaps seven or ten knots. For
some ships, maybe 30 knots.

In JaxWorld, the designs (and discussions related to design) includes speeds
of ten thousand to a million times "nominal" hull speed.
Truth be told, I have *never* before contemplated what happens at "higher
orders of magnitude of hull speeds!"

Tell me Jax, when you are working with designs like this, what do you budget
for propulsive power? Are there any special problems you encounter making
the New York to London run in under a second? Does the sonic boom present
any special design problems?
Do you have any problem with the sea boiling away under your keel? For that
matter, what material do you build your hulls out of?

Considering that at a speed of 7 million knots, you may have some, um,
special problems picking up radio waves, do you practice dead reckoning as
you travel?

Jax, I am *so* glad you're back.

Mark Browne
P.S. Decisions, decisions? Do you dig a deeper hole or admit you were
spouting off by typing without thinking?

"JAXAshby" wrote

it has no meaning in this context, though some semblence of meaning comes
about
at higher orders of magnitude of hull speeds, say at 10,000x to 100,000x,
or
1,000,000x hull speed.
snip

Mark Browne wrote:
There it is ... Jax in full flower; a thing of beauty, really. I had to read
this passage several times to appreciate the awesome power of a full-on Jax
statement. This may go down as one of the best to date. I am truly surprised
that nobody else picked up on this.

I thought it was pretty good, but did't really appreciate it properly. Thanks.

Are you thinking of opening a discussion with Jax on "hull speed" in the context
of relativistic speeds? That should be good. Instead of wave making resistance,
we could have wavicle making!



Jax, I am *so* glad you're back.

It is kind of fun. This is what the internet is *for* dammit!

Regards
Doug King

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
hey, squathead, what part of English don't you understand?

the statement *clearly* says "climbing the bow wave" is of no consequence
at or
near hull speed.

snip

Sorry Jax,

Some of us did not realized that you were *still* brooding over a flame war
you had with Doug Meredith, BigBadJohn, otnmbrd , and David Logan in July
2001:
http://www.google.com/groups?as_epq=...=lang_en&hl=en
You will understand why I missed your "climbing the bow wave" reference, *I*
was not part of that thread.

That said, looking back over the earlier thread, and looking at *this*
thread, I can't see any reference to any formula for hull speed that uses
the sine function. Can you set me straight on that?

Also, I am still struggling with this "higher orders of magnitude of hull
speeds" issue. Re-reading the 2001 thread, I noticed that you were making
reference to the works of Albert "Sailor Al" Einstein. Do these high speeds
have something to do with the Theory of Relativity?
If so, can you enlighten me on how that works?

Mark Browne
P.S. It just gets better and better!

both of you are nuts. It is like trying to discuss polymer chemistry with acid
heads.

"JAXAshby" wrote

it has no meaning in this context, though some semblence of meaning comes
about
at higher orders of magnitude of hull speeds, say at 10,000x to 100,000x,
or
1,000,000x hull speed.
snip

Mark Browne wrote:
There it is ... Jax in full flower; a thing of beauty, really. I had to
read
this passage several times to appreciate the awesome power of a full-on Jax
statement. This may go down as one of the best to date. I am truly
surprised
that nobody else picked up on this.

I thought it was pretty good, but did't really appreciate it properly.
Thanks.

Are you thinking of opening a discussion with Jax on "hull speed" in the
context
of relativistic speeds? That should be good. Instead of wave making
resistance,
we could have wavicle making!



Jax, I am *so* glad you're back.

It is kind of fun. This is what the internet is *for* dammit!

Regards
Doug King

JAXAshby wrote:

both of you are nuts. It is like trying to discuss polymer chemistry with acid
heads.

Quitting so soon Jax?

MENSA won't like it if you admit that you really don't know what a sine function or
an asymptote is, and cannot really understand the whole concept of "hull speed."
They might revoke your high IQ guarantee.

DSK