There is an IQ level below which it is difficult to engage seriously.
People ask me for clarification on a point, when I give it i'm going off on a tagent, when i don't i am criticised for that too.
The point is the point and it isn't parallax its about coning angles.
ONLY dc/da has said it is not correct and I've asked him how much incorrect, a pertinent and important question , on topic, that he has evaded
e)
if he says I am wrong because the induced flow increases with higher induced flow (which is making a set of assumptions that are not neccessarily the case)
then I think it is reasonable for me to ask him 'how wrong?' ( i have said many times the inaccuracy that he points out is true but its throwing the baby out with the bath water, ie it's tru but barely relevant) if he thinks it is relevant he should say so
ie HOW far does the (first order) relationship deviate when you take into account some secondary effects based on a (flawed) model with (flawed) assumptions
HOW WRONG
It like the red herring that crab is pressing, yes he is right there is a parallax error that i ignored, the reason i ignored it is that the measurements i made were not accurate to the extent that the paralax error would be significant. here I am wasting my time and yours coming back on a point of noise from the oaf with the mocha, if we assume that the guy has 2ft long arms and holds the camera at full extention, furthermore lets say the ratio of distance from the camera to the helicopter compared to the helicopter to the background is 1:25, furthermore lets say the camera moves through 30degrees then the distance the camera moves is about 1ft, the error created DOES exaggerate the speed because that helicopter would have travelled a further 1ft times (24/25) during that time. You can see why its a wast of time considering it. You can see why I HAVE to answer it You can see where the waste of time comes from.
SO hoss183 "and switches topic. He's just a troll, ignore him." I am not switching topic they are the topic is the balance of TRT to Cf if people coulsd stay on topic that would be great,
but 183 do you see why I have to answer these dim and off topic points? I am accussed of not answering the question. My post 183 is a waste of everybodies time in having to answer PATIENTLY everyones
side issues.
Heli "...steadfastly ignored requests for providing some background of his (her?) experience, the sheer gall of demanding and criticising another Rotorhead for choosing to remain anonymous "
can you see the hyopcritical, contradictory and illogical nature of that absurb statement? I'll spell it out you appear to agree that the desire for a member to stay anonymous is reasonable, yet it becomes a criticism againt me that I chose that. furthermore I am told that I am flying in the face of established expertise of a test pilot and two aircraft designers, well NL is a exTP and megan easily has enough talent to work for Airbus I guess, so I am faced with the implication made to me that dc/da is a designer, I find that astonishing, since his aero BET maths is straight out of an undergraduate degree module on helicopters, and all the designers I have met have allways had a pretty direct grip on the fundamentals, etc etc etc
so you can't win eh
no one will engage on the point they all refute red herrings they won't answer where the disagreement with the point is i you resond to a criticism (eg about parallax, or to what extent a ball is a type of accelerometer) then its a waste of time side track , if I dont respond to a sidetrack I'm avoiding it and repeatedly pressed. can win in a dedate with an idiot. Wasting my time.
The short summary of the relevant points are
1 my assertion
2 dc/da's refutation (which is
technically correct)
3 my request to quatify that, to see if anyone agrees that it materially alters the assertion
all the time that is happening we are having to contend with the low IQ knee jerk reaction of mad folk screaming and wailling
and the occasional intevention from the very charming and civilised legend who is John Dixon
a few irrelevant but beautiful technical inputs from NL, combined with some erroneous noise (20-30kts for the Greek helicopter, NOT TRUE)
this does not appear to be a place where a fellow can have a substantive conversation, without the mocha drinking oaf baying and goading etc
THE ONLY QUESTION I WOULD LIKE TO BE ANSWERED BY DC/DA (WHO IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAS SAID I AM WRONG)
is
HOW WRONG? Quatify it !!! (there's
wrong and wrong)