Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Saturday, 24 November 2012

Racing Airplanes

 
The Formula One racing class is without question the most successful class in the 86-year history of airplane racing. It has seen more races, more pilots and more airplanes than all other racing classes combined in a half-century lifetime, and has experienced but one important change in its rules in all that time. Moreover, it is the only formal air racing class to be exported from the U. S. to Europe, and the only class to be recognized by the International Aeronautics Federation (FAI), the world governing body for competitive aviation.

As a specified class it had its inception in the concerns of many wiser heads in the air racing community in the latter years of the "golden age" of American air racing prior to World War II. The excessive costs that were diminishing competition and an unacceptable accident rate were threatening to strangle the sport.
But the dreams of a practical, safe racing class of small planes powered by inexpensive and reliable engines wouldn't go away ... but alas, they remained nothing more thin dreams until the autumn of 1939 when, on September 24th, the New York Times reported that the National Aeronautics Association Technical Committee had an interest in midget racers. It was not until the immediate post-war years however, that any serious planning for the development of the class was accomplished.
 
In October 1946 the Professional Race Pilots Association completed work on specifications for the 190 cubic inch engine displacement class, and that organization formally accepted the specifications on December 3rd. Fifteen days later the NAA Contest Board approved the PRPA specifications and the new class was born.
On January 12, 1947 the new class was given a significant boost when the Goodyear Aircraft, Corporation announced sponsorship of three annual trophy races in the new class with $25,000 purses, with the first to be held at Cleveland the following September.
By midsummer a number of the new breed of aircraft were under construction and the first one flew on July 4th. Twenty-one of these new midget racers were formally entered in that first Goodyear trophy race, fifteen actually appeared at Cleveland and twelve completed qualifying tests and time trials. That first race meet was a notable success with eight exciting and accident free races over a three day period.... setting the tone for the years to follow.
The specifications which established among their rigid compliance requirements a maximum engine size of 190 cubic inch displacement worked well for a number of years. The Continental four cylinder air cooled engine of 188 cubic inches displacement was the one dominant engine of the day with a reputation for reliability in the American small plane market. It was rated at 85 horsepower, was economical and was readily available ... and thus became the standard powerplant of this racing class.
However with the passage of years, the Continental C-85 engine went out of production and with their ever-limiting availability by the mid-'60's, it became necessary to amend the specifications for the class and permit use of the newer and slightly larger piston displacement engines of 200 cubic inches. This was done on January 1, 1968, and the 190 Cubic Inch Class officially became the Formula One Class. It is interesting to note that this has been the only significant change to the specifications for the class in its 50 year history.
Performance increases which had been steady but un-dramatic now accelerated significantly, though not solely as a result of the slightly larger engines and the new and improved aircraft designs and materials for their construction. New race courses were generally larger and uniformly of six pylon configuration which made turns at the pylons less stressful on both pilot and plane...and less hazardous.
A six-pylon race course was nothing new. One of such configuration had been first used at Istres, France successfully in 1923. At that first Goodyear meet in Cleveland in 1947, the NAA Contest Board originally approved a three pylon course with unusually sharp 60' turns at all three pylons. But at the insistence of PRPA president, veteran racer Art Chester, who adamantly sought safer course layouts, it was redesigned, but only to a four pylon layout. Ironically, a six pylon course was not to be used until May 1949 at Newhall, California as a result of the tragic deaths of Chester and another pilot on a four pylon course at San Diego two weeks earlier.
Formula One racing became something of an all-American spectator sport. Races were held in both large and small venues from coast to coast and interest among aviation enthusiasts was high. But it remained uniquely an American sport until the first of the European races under Formula One rules was flown by the British at Jurby, Isle of Man in 1970, and to date the Europeans (primarily the British and the French) have flown 126 race meets in 5 countries; and in 1976 the French held the first truly international event of significance, the 1976 International Grand Prix at Le Castellet, France with planes and pilots from three nations participating. Subsequently, British crews and planes competed in U. S. races in 1983 and 1987.
Although raceplane performance improved remarkably over the sport's first 21 years, it was not totally unexpected given the more favourable factors that emerged with the passage of time. The average speed of the ten fastest qualifiers rose 30% between the first race meet and the last meet with the 190 cubic inch engines twenty years later. In the next twenty years, that figure had risen to 57% with the amended specifications, improved aircraft designs which took advantage of improved technology, and larger and better configured race courses. And even more dramatic increases in performance have been recorded in the past few years. At the latest meet in 1996, the top qualifying speed was over 100 miles per hour faster than that of the top qualifier at that inaugural race in 1947 ... and with an engine with but 5% greater displacement.
In the fifty year lifespan of this racing class, over 200 aircraft have raced in 782 U. S. races in 177 race meets (through the 1996 racing season) from coast to coast and in Mexico and Canada, and the number of existing and under-construction planes is at an all-time high. The current group of Formula One racing pilots is more experienced than ever before with most of them flying regularly in other segments of the aviation world.. . as airline pilots, corporate pilots, charter pilots,. FAA check pilots, military pilots, agriculture pilots and instructors. Four aging veterans in their mid-'70's, one of whom is commencing his 50th year of racing in this class. . a remarkable achievement not likely to be equalled.

New and technologically advanced planes are now racing and new ones are appearing with each new racing season to challenge the leaders in this one-of-a-kind sport; a sport that gives promise of a bright future as it wings optimistically into its sixth decade.

Agricultural simulator

Bored of shooters? Killed enough dragons? Perhaps you’re looking for something fresh. Something more rural, with classy overtones of nostalgia. Perhaps you’re keen to get away from war and blood and and death and that. What you need, my friend, is a tractor and a field to plough, and an incessant banjo twanging away in the background. The banjo is especially important. Enter Agricultural Simulator: Historical Farming, a glossy look at “the golden age of mechanized farming.” It claims to be “the ultimate agricultural driving, workflow and business simulation.” If you don’t like the idea of words like “workflow” appearing in your out-of-work entertainment, hold off judgement until you’ve seen the first screenshots showing a those classic tractors lingering in empty garages, unused and alone. And before you ask, YES. There is a playable demo. It wouldn’t be a proper farming simulator without animal husbandry, of course. The official Agricultural Simulator site has word of some of the extra tasks you can take on as king farmer. It’s in German, so you can thank Google translate for the skewed expressions. “Build on another leg, and you are operating a livestock: cows, horses, sheep, chickens, geese, including game, you can keep on your farm and maintain.” says the site. “If all goes well, you will be able to obtain offspring in some species,” it adds. Move over, Call of Duty, there’s a new horse in town. There’s even a co-op mode that’ll let you and a friend tend to your yard together. Agricultural Simulator: Historical Farming is out on May 18.






The sequel of the successful Agricultural Simulator 2011 enters the next round.
An idyllic grange surrounded by invitingly untouched mountain panoramas and unworked fields are awaiting all agriculture fans in the Agricultural Simulator 2012. At their very own farm hobby-farmers undertake the daily tasks of an agriculturist: The producing of food, sustainable resources and the delivery of energy materials. Fields have to be worked and farm animals fostered. To work smaller fields and alpine pastures only machines with less performance are available at the beginning, but the vehicle fleet will constantly be supplemented by more powerful agricultural implements.
Future agriculturists have to invest tactical and clever - the consumption of money by the running costs and seeds must not be underestimated. To realize profit it takes financial and tactical skill.
Numerous models of Fendt, Challenger, Massey Ferguson and Valtra, which vehicles are reproduced in facsimile, are on hand. All machines and tractors can be driven and navigated by the player.
Features:
  • Vast gaming world with mountains and valleys
  • Exciting career mode with trading feature
  • Market place for animals, seeds and machines
  • Countless economical circuits: growing of crops, breeding, bio gas
  • Agricultural technology of Fendt, Massey Ferguson, Challenger and Valtra
  • Realistic physics
  • Highly sophisticated co-workers AI
  • Day and night cycle as well as varying weather conditions
  • Multiplayer via network or internet

Thursday, 22 November 2012

Aerosol manufacturing

 

History of the Aerosol


The first use for an aerosol package arose during World War II, but the idea of using low-pressure liquefied gas to atomize droplets of liquid in the air was developed in 1924. Canisters filled with insecticide and propellants were used to protect U.S. servicemen from insects carrying diseases such as malaria. Shortly after the war, Robert Abplanalp, founder of Precision Valve Corporation (PVC), invented the first mass-produced aerosol valve. The patent was filed in September 1949 and was issued on March 17, 1953. From that invention, the aerosol industry quickly developed in the United States and around the world.
 

How an Aerosol Works

The aerosol package is a self-contained dispensing system with three main elements:
  1. Active Ingredients (soap or disinfectant, etc.)
  2. Inert or Inactive ingredients (water)
  3. Propellant
The propellant is a gaseous compound which pushes the product out of the container and produces a spray or foam. In most cases, the propellant also acts as a solvent to keep the product at the proper strength. In the United States, the most common propellants are naturally occurring hydrocarbons. A few products, about 10% of today’s aerosols, use compressed gases like carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide as propellants.
The final element is the container, which is usually a steel or aluminum can. The leak-proof can protects the product from contamination and evaporation.
All of these pieces work together based on simple scientific principles. An aerosol package is an air-tight, pressurized container. Pressing the actuator button opens the valve. Since the pressure outside the can is less that the pressure inside, the propellant expands, pushing the product up the dip tube and out through the valve. This system allows the product to be applied in a variety of ways; in a fine mist, a metered spray delivering just the right amount, foam, or even a long distance spray.

Lines 7v2

Let’s Set the Record Straight on Aerosols!

Q. What are aerosols, anyway?
A. Aerosols are very fine particles of liquid or solid substances suspended in air. Fog, for example, is a normal aerosol. In aerosol packaging, the substance to be sprayed is propelled through a valve as a fine mist or foam. This provides a safe, efficient means of dispensing thousands of consumer products such as shaving cream, hair spray, paint and antiperspirants.
Q. How long have aerosols been around?
A. Sixty-five years ago, U.S. Department of Agriculture scientists developed the principle of pressurized insect spray. This gave birth to the container used by American troops to fight malaria by killing mosquitoes in the South Pacific during World War II. Today’s lightweight low-pressure can is a direct descendant of those ponderous, high-pressure canisters. Refinements to containers, valves, propellants and formulas have broadened the range of aerosol products and widened consumer acceptance. Aerosol-related jobs now employ over 50,000 Americans.
Q. What is the ozone layer?
A. In the stratosphere, some 12-20 miles above the Earth, ozone (an unstable and very reactive form of oxygen) forms a protective layer that blocks most of the sun’s ultra-violet rays.
Q. What causes ozone depletion?
A. In addition to natural phenomena such as earthquakes, among the man-made products believed to contribute to ozone damage are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used mainly in refrigerators and air conditioners. CFCs contain chlorine which attacks ozone in the upper atmosphere.
Q. Do aerosols contain chlorofluorocarbons?
A. Since 1978, no aerosols made or sold in the U.S. have contained CFCs except for a tiny fraction (less than 2%) specifically approved by the government for essential medical and other unique uses, such as inhalers for asthma sufferers. Not only are CFCs absent from the propellant used in aerosols, but there are no CFCs in the products packed in aerosol packages, such as hair spray, deodorants, antiperspirants or other personal care items, nor are they in spray paint, household, food or automotive products. The industry is in full compliance with rules established by the EPA, the FDA, and the Consumer Products Safety Commission.
Q. Then why the confusion?
A. Aerosol manufacturers in Europe and other parts of the world initially did not follow the lead of the U.S. industry in substituting alternative propellants for CFCs. The fact that aerosols made in underdeveloped countries may contain CFCs has caused confusion in press reports and in the public mind about the stratospheric ozone/aerosol link. However, American consumers can be confident that aerosols made in the U.S. will not damage the ozone layer. Other countries have also changed from ozone-depleting propellants to non-depleting forms because those countries signed the Montreal Protocol. The Montreal Protocol, of which the U.S.A. was a signatory, may arguably be the most effective international environmental agreement ever written. All nations of the world signed the agreement and the phase-out of CFCs and ozone-depleting substances (ODS) is 90% complete worldwide.
Q. What about the problem with urban smog, also known as ambient ozone?
A. As urban areas struggle to meet federal air quality standards, regulators are attempting to identify any products that emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which in turn contribute to lower level ozone. Unlike upper level ozone, which protects us, this lower level or tropospheric ozone is a major component of smog. The smog problem is particularly acute in California and that state has identified a variety of consumer products which emit VOCs as among those sources and are now being regulated.
Q. So aerosols do contain VOCs?
A. Yes, but so do fingernail polish, perfume and mouthwash, as well as pump hair sprays, roll-ons, and stick deodorants. Restrictions on these products are hardly the answer to air pollution. The solution to the smog problem, for example, lies on the freeways and in the power plants…not in the medicine cabinet or the bedroom!
Q. What propellants are used in aerosol containers today?
A. Depending on the end use, either liquefied or compresses gases are used to dispense the product from the aerosol container in the most efficient manner. Neither type is a chlorofluorocarbon. Liquefied propellants, such as isobutene, normal butane or pentane, are natural organic products which do not deplete the ozone layer, taint the soil or pollute the water supply. They do not contribute to global warming. As used in aerosol cans, their contribution to lower level ozone formation is negligible.
Compressed gas, such as carbon dioxide (the same gas which puts the “fizz” in soda pop) is used in products designed to deliver a coarse spray at close range…in household disinfectants, or example. Nitrogen, as used in contact lens cleaners and nitrous oxide, as used in whipped toppings, are also used as propellants.
Q. If the contribution of aerosols to air pollution is minimal, then why are they suspect?
A. Aerosols, still remembered from the pre-1978 chlorofluorocarbon/ozone controversy, offer a convenient target. Perhaps because of their “high tech” characteristics, they don’t seem to fit the profile of a “natural” product. Rather than switching to non-aerosol containers, well-meaning consumers who are concerned about air quality would be far better advised to simply maintain the family car properly!
Q. But aren’t alternative packages better for the environment?
A. Once again, myth prevails over reality. For example, pump sprays are generally perceived as being environmentally superior. Actually, the ingredients in the pump container which replace the aerosol propellant, contain many more reactive VOCs than the aerosol package. The aerosol steel can is fully recyclable; pumps and roll-ons are not.
Q. But after all, do we really need aerosols?
A. The aerosol container is a unique package. It is convenient, effective and efficient. It offers consumers a controlled “clean hands’ way to deliver personal care, spray paint, household and automotive products. It is hermetically sealed and its contents are always free of bacterial contamination.
It would be tragic indeed if aerosols were to be replaced with less effective alternatives, with absolutely no resulting improvement in air quality. Evidently the American consumer agrees, in that 3.7 billion aerosol units were produced in the USA in 2005. Western Europe, which also does not use CFCs as propellant, produced over 5 billion aerosol units in 2005.
 

Safety and Disposal

Like most household or personal care products, aerosols are not hazardous when handled and disposed of properly. Reading and following the instructions printed on the label will ensure proper and safe use. The label instructions are there for your protection.
The best way to dispose of an empty aerosol container is to recycle it. Aerosol cans are made of steel and aluminum and can be recycled like any other empty steel cans. A growing number of communities accept empty aerosol cans together with other metal containers. Check with your local recycling coordinator, however, before putting any material in your recycling bin. Be sure the can is empty before placing the container in the trash with your other solid waste if recycling is not available.

advocate devil


A devil's advocate is someone who argues against an idea, position, or cause for the sake of argument, rather than out of actual opposition. While a devil's advocate can simply play a contrary role, someone who argues against an idea can also stimulate discussion which can identify weak points in an argument which need to be addressed. Therefore, one could consider this approach incredibly useful, albeit stressful for someone advocating alone against an accepted idea in a group. The term is derived from a tradition in the Roman Catholic Church, in which someone would act as an advocate for the devil, arguing against the canonization of someone as a saint. The devil's advocate was an official position in the Church between 1587 CE and 1983 CE, and he was known as advocatus diaboli, which literally means "the devil's advocate." The person in this position was expected to come up with reasons why someone should not be canonized as a saint, to ensure that the canonization was undertaken in good faith and that the candidate truly was a saint In casual conversation, a devil's advocate can seem extremely annoying, especially in a group which is generally in agreement on a topic, and even more so when it is clear that the person is arguing just to be contrary. In situations like this it can be helpful to remember the historical role of the devil's advocate; rather than reacting with irritation, it can be interesting to actually discuss the issue with someone taking a contrary position. In a more serious context, like that of a group of people making a major business or foreign policy decision, the devil's advocate is a crucial person in the group. Groups tend to enter a state of mind called "groupthink," in which members of the group make poor decisions because they want to maintain their collective

cohesiveness. Groupthink is marked by things like self-censorship and the idea that everyone in the group agrees when this is not, in fact, the case. A devil's advocate can help to test a concept, ensuring that it really is sound. Many people also use the term to excuse themselves before making a contradictory or potentially offensive statement, often saying something like "not to play the devil's advocate, but ..." This measure is often undertaken out of a desire to keep discussions calm and rational, as many people react unfavorably when their ideas are challenged. Don't be afraid to be the devil's advocate in a group, or even with yourself; by doing so, you can promote a probing of ideas, opinions, concepts, and positions to test their soundness. It also prepares you for arguing with someone who is genuinely opposed to the issue.