PDA

View Full Version : Some thoughts on sound...

Turbofan
27th Jun 2001, 14:41
I was thinking about the fact that there's no sound in space, as there's no medium (air) for it to pass through. Which led me to ask what it was that produced the sound in the first place - and my answer was 'movement'. Can anyone confirm this...?

So a moving body imparts a bunch of energy onto it's surrounding environment, part of which is sound. Now, say a space craft imparts 100 units of energy, 10 units of which are sound (as the craft goes through the atmosphere and into orbit), and the other 90 units as whatever.

So the craft is in space now (free from the earths atmosphere), I would expect it would still impart 100 units of energy to the imediate environment. But it obviously isn't going to be sound... I thought initially it could be heat, but there's nothing to conduct it too...

So where does the energy go?
Does the craft itself absorb it in some way?
Does it even produce the energy...?

Turbofan

P.S. Amazing the things you think of when you're trying to get to sleep...

Bally Heck
27th Jun 2001, 16:09
Turbofan
Sir Isaac Newton's three laws of motion should explain this. Also it's patently bleeding obvious :-}

The momentum of an object is constant unless an outside force acts on that obejct.

If the spacecraft is in the atmosphere, it requires thrust to maintain it's velocity or to accelerate. Just like an aircraft, in steady level flight, thrust = drag

In space....no one can hear you scream. And of course a body will continue in a straight line and at a constant velocity unless outside forces, (gravity, asteroids, green people) influence it.

Pielander
27th Jun 2001, 19:51
I know what you're saying. It will still produce the same amount of energy, and the vibration of the airframe that would have produced sound will clearly not result in a vibration travelling through the surrounding medium (since there is none). This is not particularly significant to the aircraft, because all this would do in air is damp the vibration in the airframe *slightly*, while the rest of the energy would be converted to heat in the process of fatiguing the airframe. I would conclude then that in space, the rest of the energy that would have produced sound would be converted to heat and dissipated by E-M radiation.

Pie

[This message has been edited by Pielander (edited 27 June 2001).]

Bally Heck
28th Jun 2001, 03:01
Strewth!!

How did you guys ever graduate from Starfleet academy?

Space is empty. A vaccuum. There's nothing there. It is a void. Zilch. Nothing. Devoid of matter. Lacking substance. Vacant, Unfilled. Bare. Blank. Unoccupied. It is bleedin.....space.

Therefore there is no friction. No drag. Nothing to conduct sound or vibration. Nothing to absorb energy.

If it is producing thrust it will accelerate. If it isn't it will continue in a straight line until it is influenced by an external force. (see above)

Pielander
28th Jun 2001, 03:10
Bally Heck

We're not arguing with Sir Isaac. I realise how a momentum balance works, but the original question was nothing to do with that. It was about what happens to the proportion of 'waste energy' which, within the atmosphere, would normally be dissipated as sound. (From a jet/rocket engine [delete where inappropriate], that is - not from some sort of wind-rush noise, which I realise will be non-existent.)

My answer is that the vibration is damped by internal cyclic stresses of the structure, converted to heat, and radiated out into space.

Please explain to me how this conveys a lack of understanding of Newtonian physics.

Pie

[This message has been edited by Pielander (edited 27 June 2001).]

Bally Heck
28th Jun 2001, 03:39
Ah. Er. Um.

Sorry Pielander. I'm with you now. Yep I guess internal vibration would be damped out by friction in the structure of the vessel which would be dissipated in the form of radiated heat. This is also what happens in the flying machines which you earthlings use.

RTFQ as my old drill sergeant used to say to me. I hope Jean Luc didn't see this posting.

Turbofan
28th Jun 2001, 05:57
So you're saying that the heat is dissipated in some form of radiation?

I can't quite see it, and am not sure I've understood exactly what you're saying... :rolleyes: :)

Turbofan

Mark 1
28th Jun 2001, 17:38
Nearly all of the noise from a spacecraft is produced in the vortex sheet between the rocket eflux and the ambient air. This is predominantly a quadripole source of noise from the fluctuating stresses in the vortices.
In space there is no vortex generation and the gases continue in uniform motion, any turbulence source of noise would dissipate in the expanding gas. The acoustic energy is vastly smaller than the kinetic energy of the gas and has no noticeable effect on performance.
Noise propogating through vibrating panels is of little significance, and in space there would just be a change in the panels impedance and the energy would be reflected back and dissipated internally.

Bally Heck
28th Jun 2001, 20:39
Turbofan.
We now reach the first law of thermodynamics which roughly states that the energy in a system remains constant but that the form of the energy may be transformed.

The total energy of the system equals the internal energy, which depends only on the thermodynamic state, plus the kinetic energy, which depends on the system's motion, plus the potential energy, which depends on the system's position with respect to the chosen coordinate frame.

Kinetic energy (ie. vibration) may be converted to heat energy. Strike a piece of metal on an anvil for a few minutes and it's temperature will rise. Likewise a bicycle pumps motion produces heat due to the compression of the air.

Thus the vibration of your spacecraft will convert into a temperature increase as molecules and components move. Next time you destroy a credit card, bend it repeatedly and see how it gets warm at the fold.

If there is a heat gradient between the spacecraft and space. ie one is hot and the other cold, this heat energy will radiate from the spacecraft into space in the same way as it radiates from the bar of an electric fire. The rate of radiation is proportional to the square of the difference in temperatures, so a very hot body will begin cooling very quickly but the rate of cooling will reduce as the temperature difference reduces.

Having said all that....the thing would have to be shaking like a dance floor during an earthquake to produce appreciable amountsd of heat.

Admiral James T. Kirk
29th Jun 2001, 02:52
That's my boy!

Could I just add to that that any body above absolute zero will radiate heat at a calculable rate, independent of its surroundings. The rate at which heat is radiated depends only on its absolute temperature and the properties of its outer surface. (i.e. it will still radiate heat even if it's the coldest thing around - it just means that it will absorb faster than it radiates until it reaches an equilibrium state).

[This message has been edited by Admiral James T. Kirk (edited 28 June 2001).]

Turbofan
29th Jun 2001, 10:20
But if you're in space there's nothing to radiate the heat to...

I understand the bar-heater analogy, but there's air present as the medium that transfers the heat.

Surely the heat would stay with the craft...?
Although it doesn't make sense to me that it would stay heated forever, so... how exactly does this heat transfer into nothing/space?

Geez I'm lovin' this!

ft
29th Jun 2001, 11:31
Turbofan,
heat can be transferred in a number of ways. Convection (air), conduction or... yup, radiation in the EM spectrum. If heat could not be transferred throught empty space through radiation we wouldn't have much use of that sun thing, would we? *grin*

The heat isn't radiated TO anything per se, just radiated. The probabilities dictate that most likely it will hit something or other eventually, otherwise it will just continue forever, helping to expand our universe at the speed of light. :)

Now I'll go back to trying to figure out what a "quadripole source of noise" is. *grin* I'm impressed.

Cheers,
/ft

Turbofan
29th Jun 2001, 11:56

Thanks ft, I can't believe I didn't think of that! It's like a slap in the face... :)

Opens the door to yet more questions though, but I'll ponder those for a while yet.

Cheers.

Bally Heck
29th Jun 2001, 14:27
A discussion on entropy anyone?

Prof2MDA
29th Jun 2001, 17:46
Good discussion, some here may enjoy this:

http://www.secondlaw.com/

twistedenginestarter
29th Jun 2001, 18:40
Look guys I only got a 3rd but this is really not that subtle.

Sound is simply a disturbance on the fluid medium in which the disturbance is generated. No medium; no sound.

Look at it this way. You descend over the Pacific gently. Everything is fine until you get to 0 amsl. Then the wings fall off.

Why?

Why didn't they fall off before?

Now reverse the argument. You create a sound in the dense medium known as air but as you climb to 3000000000 feet. No sound.

Actually of course Space is not a vacuum so there will be sound. It's just that it is so minimal you don't notice.

What about the engines vibrating? Well they will propagate sound through the vessel but it won't leave the vessel because the vibrations have no surrounding medium to vibrate. Does this mean anything? No. The damping effect of the air on the airframe is negligible by comparison.

Bally Heck
29th Jun 2001, 20:06
Twistedenginestarter.

You fell into the same trap as I did.

RTFQ

ft
30th Jun 2001, 04:02
twisted,
in addition, above a certain altitude the air will start acting as separate particles rather than a fluid. I e sound waves will not propagate - no sound. They ran into this with some high altitude X series aircraft IIRC...

 Oh, and this of course meant that, for once, the "lift is created by air molecules bouncing off the bottom of the wing like marbles" finally got to be right. Once. :)

Nothing is ever simple! If it is, it ain't aviation! :)

Cheers,
/ft

[This message has been edited by ft (edited 30 June 2001).]

Steven JC
4th Jul 2001, 19:30
what what what is all this about..... Sound is simply, very simply brought about by changes in pressure. The rate at which you vary the pressure will determine the frequency of the sound you here. Sound waves are (on this earth) waves of changing air pressure. In space - no air - no sound.

However, when in space firing an engine, matter is diplaced from the engine. If you are behind this engine you will probably hear it. However the sound waves will be waves of the combustion products and not air.

Relevant??

------------------
Doors to Automatic

DeltaTango
4th Jul 2001, 22:10
If a tree falls in the middle of the forest with no one around to hear it-does it make a noise?!?
:) :) :)

Pielander
4th Jul 2001, 23:59
Yes, unless it's in a vacuum.

twistedenginestarter
5th Jul 2001, 12:24
Pielander

Typing error I guess. You obviously meant to say even if it is in a vacuum.

A spaceship flying through space will make a lot of noise. Noise doesn't need air. It is a vibration of any medium.

I think this is what was nagging Turbofan. He was thinking all this commotion - where is it going to? And the answer is of course all the noise generated by smashing into the atmosphere isn't being generated (so no problem there) whilst the noise of the engines etc is propogating around the vessel but not transferring into the medium surrounding the vessel.

Pielander
5th Jul 2001, 15:49
Touche.

Although, I have made the point before about the vibration propagating through the vessel/tree and been dissipated as heat. Again, it comes down to the definition of the word noise. Is it a noise unless it is being ransmitted through a fluid? Probably, but I hadn't thouht that far.

Also, what would a tree be doing in a vacuum? I would have to say it wouldn't be in a vacuum to fall down in the first place.

Pie

Turbofan
5th Jul 2001, 16:02
OK, the picture clears yet more...
Sooo...

Hang on, I need to think a little more.

[please pause here for a few minutes]

So basically the energy that's passed to the air (to create the pressure waves) is non-existent in space. That's the general concensus I'm getting.
OK, well let me put up another hurdle (unless I've missed something obvious, which is very likely at this time of night...). The craft has say 100 units of energy, and loses 10 to the air/sound/pressure waves. So does it just simply hold those 10 units when it's in space? (As say Kinetic Energy for example.) I would asume it would.

Turbofan

gaunty
5th Jul 2001, 16:44
It's actually much more complicated and much simpler at the the same time, than all of the above.
The reason that aircraft fly is a result of the sound that is produced in the pursuit of entropy. Early aircraft were very loud for not much load or speed, the DoX for example had sixteen sound engines for about 100kts flat out with a dozen pax, but fortunately aerodynamic engineers have worked out how to get a much more efficient use of sound over the years. The new wide chord fans are a great example of this efficiency gain.
The bigger the aircraft the greater level, as distinct from volume of sound is required to "shake" itself between the air molecules and the ground thus producing what we quaintly call 'lift'.
It also explains why the higher the altitude the less actual noise is required, there are less air molecules to pry apart.
See.
Ever noticed how it's actually quite hard to "hear" an aircraft flying overhead at FL350 from the ground.
It is also why you don't see your average space shuttle running its engine as it orbits, no, or very few air molecules, to pry apart, so no sound required.

Just think of the proportion of time taken up in our training for dealing with the eventuality that it becomes quieter than normal or even :rolleyes: totally silent.
Ergo it's all to do with the amount of sound.
Less or no sound is a pilots worst nightmare. :)
Turbofan, there 'tis, simple really, I hope this makes you sleep a little easier. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

Turbofan Tool
5th Jul 2001, 21:05
hey turbofan, if I gaff on your head, in space, would you hear it......I think not, but by jingoes you'd smell it

------------------
Turbofan......I have no clue???

Pielander
5th Jul 2001, 22:42
gaunty:

Eh? Wot u been smokin'?

Sound is not what causes aeroplanes to fly. The principles of aerodynamic flight don't apply in space anyway. The noise comes mostly from the engines, either in the air of out of it, and the noise itself is caused by turbulent flow, whether it be over the wing, in the exhaust stream, or in the engine itself.

The main reaqson why you can't hear an aircraft at FL420 is because it's 8 miles away.

Pie

Tinstaafl
6th Jul 2001, 00:31
Very funny, Gaunty!

Turbofan
6th Jul 2001, 13:52
LOL!

Hey Pielander, I think he just may be taking the p!ss... :) I hope it's that, 'cos Gaunty, you've lost me mate...

Keep in mind folks that this isn't really about sound, it's about energy transference. (I hope that's a word - yes it is, I just looked it up http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif )

[This message has been edited by Turbofan (edited 06 July 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Turbofan (edited 06 July 2001).]

Pielander
6th Jul 2001, 15:01
I hope so too, but alas, it's so difficult to tell these days.

gaunty
6th Jul 2001, 17:37
Pielander
Sorry was just taking the p!ss.

But it is true, that when it does go quieter than it should be, the look on the PICs face is a treat.
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/shocker.gif

Checkboard
9th Jul 2001, 10:49
Which explains how hovercraft, choppers and the Harrier fly - nothing going over the wings, but a bloody great amount of noise jostling those molecules!

t'aint natural
9th Jul 2001, 19:49
Tangential, but it may be youse guys could answer a vexed question which has long been the subject of debate in my place of work, to wit, what is the speed of sound on Mars? (surface level). No, we couldn't find out how many grammes per cubic metre either. Not very many though.

Tricky Woo
10th Jul 2001, 20:35
Hi All,

"In space, nobody can hear you scream"... but you can get a cracking suntan.

Let's see if I've understood all this banter:

A rocket is whizzing about space at full throttle. 90% of the energy dissipates in a cloud of nasty, hot, smelly, propulsive particles kicked out at a zillion MPH to keep Newton happy. Stay away from the blunt end, then, huh? However, 10% of the energy boings around the aeroshell (smart arse tech term) causing it to vibrate like an AC-DC concert stage.

Can't hear much of either the vibes, or the propulsion, 'cos the vacuum is unable to conduct sound waves. Also 'cos no one is daft enough to be anywhere near the sodding thing. The wibbly-wobbly panels continue to vibrate like buggery, but ultimately get damped by all those molecules tap dancing together. Wobbling molecules generate heat energy causing said aeroshell to heat up.

Said heat doesn't have the nous to leap into the hot, propulsive gases, so they're not going to make much of a contribution to the going forward thing. So the heat says 'sod it' and simply radiates (slowly) in all directions into the vacuum via the electro-magnetic spectrum whatsit. Contrary to what the Hoover Company says, vacuums propagate photons nicely, but are useless at getting dust out of a corner.

Seeing as the rocket, vacuum, gases, electro-magnetic radiation, Coca-Cola logo, and the astronaut with a suntan, are all within the same Universe, then energy is fully conserved, so we can all sleep at night.

TW

Mister Proach
11th Jul 2001, 04:25
I cant believe you are all so ignorant of the facts.

Its all very simple.

When the craft is in space there is no sound that can be heard externally because there is no air to conduct it. However, if the craft is using its engine to acclerate a tiny fraction of the energy of the exhaust can by conducted back through the nozzle, vibrating the craft and manifest as a faint noise inside the craft where there is (hopefully) some air. Most spacecraft do not run thier engines in space unless they are accelerating or changing orbit. This is because there is no drag (no air) and so the craft can maintain speed almost indefinitely without using any power (conservation of energy). Thus a satellite can remain in space for years without using its rocket motors other than for minor corrections.

Its also seems there is a serious misunderstanding here about heat energy of a spacecraft. The craft can dissipate some energy as heat by infra-red radiation which requires no air as it is an electromagnetic form of energy. However, (to contradist Bally Heck) it cannot conduct heat to its surroundings or convect heat whcich requires the presence of air. Incidentally, Bally Heck mentins the difference between the temperature of space and the craft. What are you on about. As a vacuum cannot contain any heat by defintion, there can be no conduction due to a difference in temperature. Radiation on the other hand is not affected by the difference in temperature between the two mediums, only by the radiating body's temerature.

Is that all clear now?

Tricky Woo
11th Jul 2001, 05:14
I preferred my version.

Turbofan
11th Jul 2001, 05:41
OK, Mister Proach, so then you're saying 100% of what was sound energy is now electro-magnetic radiation...?

Turbofan
12th Jul 2001, 04:02
I guess you were, and it'll do me.
Cheers folks.

gaunty
12th Jul 2001, 06:26
And now for something completely different.

Turbofans sleepless nights are shared by many with useful results.
We are now all more edumakated about matters rocketry.
And.
A fantastic example the application of this science to aviation, is the discovery of the use of the difference in speed of transmission of sound in different media in the investigation of aircraft accidents, specifically bombs or explosions.

Detailed frequency/amplitude analysis of the CVR tape of an aircraft brought down by a bomb showed a very small trace immediately before the sound of the explosion in the cockpit.
A very smart insomniac suspected that it may have been the vibration of the bomb "noise" through the airframe, which being solid transmitted the "noise" at a faster speed than the air.
By measuring the time difference beteween the two and using a little calculus it was possible to calculate the distance of the "noise" from the CVR.

Bingo!!! or Eureka if you are Greek, when they checked the results from this and other accidents it was confirmed to the very seat.

Awesome hey. :cool:

Bally Heck
12th Jul 2001, 06:28
Mr Proach,

I feel I must beg to differ on a point or two. My posting mentioned neither conduction or convection, both of which require a medium to operate in.

Space is not a vaccuum. It is certainly a partial vaccuum but is still rich in matter.

If space contains no heat, then by definition it must be at absolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin) this is the theoretical temperature at which a perfect gas would cease to exist and is theoretical I believe isofar as it cannot be attained. (although scientists have been remarkably close)

I am working from memory here now but back in my engineering days we were taught that the quantity of heat radiated from a body was proportional to the square of the temperature diffference between the body and it's surroundings. Thus if a body is at a temperature of 1000C, and it's surroundings are at 1000C, no heat will be radiated. If the surroundings are close to absolute zero then it will radiate heat with great vigour and perspicacity. The surroundings will consequently increase in temperature. (See the first law of thermodynamics) and the rate of radiation will decrease.

Is that a doughnut.....or a meringue.
(best said with a Scottish accent) :cool:

Smudger
15th Jul 2001, 02:28
Enjoyed your discussion guys.. OK, here we go.. can we travel faster than light, and can we travel through time? Serious question, serious answers only please.

Smudger
15th Jul 2001, 02:38
Oh, and by the way, what relationship are you to Stanley Unwin? (RIP) Deep joy.

Pielander
15th Jul 2001, 15:36
Mr P:

Some of us have the right idea already if you bother to read the rest of the posts.

Bally Heck:

Any body above absolute zero radiates heat regardless of its surroundings. It is a dynamic equilibrium, and if its surroundings are at the same temperature, then it will absorb heat at the same rate as it loses it.

I also preferred Tricky's explanation. :)

Bally Heck
16th Jul 2001, 09:11
I have now donned my cone shaped hat with the D on the front. I am also standing in the corner of the classroom, fully humiliated in front of the other pupils.

Sir tells me that what I should have said was that the amount of heat lost by a body is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature (K) times the area of the body times the Stefan-Boltzman constant.

He also tells me that the temperature of the universe which "What are you on about. As a vacuum cannot contain any heat by defintion,"
is 4 degrees K.

Apparently I can go to my seat soon :(

Turbofan
18th Jul 2001, 15:34
Hey Smudger, make it a new thread.
(If you haven't done so already...)

Turbofan

Avtrician
19th Jul 2001, 07:20
I think I got it now, Noise is what makes things move. Its obvious now, Loud cars go quick, F18 and F111 make lots and lots of noise so they can fly.

A rocket makes even more noise, so it gets into space, here it lets out the sattelite which makes no noise so it stays where it was put. the rocket then turns on the noise generator and heads back to earth. On entering the atmosphere it makes so much noise, that the energy overload causes it to burn up.

So now to the Question , How does the Tardis get around. :p :eek:

Travelling Toolbox
19th Jul 2001, 09:02
Hang on a bit.........if my poor grey matter understands what some of you are saying, then if a rocket DID NOT shut down after attaining escape velocity (and assuming an inexhaustable fuel supply), it would continue to accelerate in this void ultimatley reaching the speed of light?

Nah! there would have to be some friction or something offered at some point by what little is out there and set up "drag" to retard its progress - wouldn't there?.

:confused:

Vapour Trail
19th Jul 2001, 09:11
Toolbox, that is where E=mc2 comes in. And also the rocket will reach a constant velocity when its forward speed is equal to the speed of the gases being emitted from the rocket, as it is newtons reaction (equal and opposite) that makes the rocket accelerate.

Smudger, with reference to the speed of light, scientists have already found particles that travel faster than the speed of light, called quarks, but they only exist for microseconds, but I was theorising that maybe we can only detect them for microseconds because due to traveling faster than the speed of light, they are traveling through time, or maybe they are flicking in and out of sub either, or even existing in more than one place at a time due to traveling in the 4 th dimension....that being time........Just some food for thought :D :rolleyes: :eek: :confused:

[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Vapour Trail ]

Roller Merlin
19th Jul 2001, 09:38
Avtrician,
with reference to the Tardis, there is a beautifully simple answer.

Being a telephone box, the Tardis is effectively a sound device, and as suggested on this forum, the level of sound is really what makes rockets and other things fly. Simple as that.

Newton missed this whole concept because he was looking for something only scientists and nerd schoolboys could understand. Other scientists then built a load of bollocks theory on top to confuse everyone away from the simplicity and the conspiracy has continued.

Yes - the Tardis amplifies and modifies sound in different planes to enable space and time travel along those planes. You have all heard the Tradis sound - there is no other sound like it.

Show me a transporting device that does not involve levels of sound emmission in proportion to it's power! Even in space an idle rocket is just drifting quietly. To alter direction it must cause matter or particles to move or vibrate and this is sound. Who will prove me wrong!

twistedenginestarter
19th Jul 2001, 12:33
Space vehicles, of course, use gravity (ie planets) to change direction. Gravity does not create noise as it acts simultaneously on all matter and thus cannot create a local compression which then propagates as a sound wave.

So there you have it. Issac was right all along. (Clever bloke - came from near me) ;)

Avtrician
23rd Jul 2001, 13:09
Roller Merlin
Of course you are right, I forgot about the Whoop Whoop sound of the Tardis on lift off. I am now a totaly happy (if somewhat deranged) person. :) :)

Now that I think about it The transporter on The Star Ship Enterprise is sound powered as well.

Now if I could only find out what the meaning of life is. :rolleyes:

Turbofan
24th Jul 2001, 06:04
Hey, keep in mind that the Trekky Transporter doesn't actually give you any speed. You're just there, then you're somewhere else with no real physical movement through space. Time yes, maybe, but not space.

Perhaps it's got something to do with the tone of the sound.

gaunty
24th Jul 2001, 18:40
twistedenginestarter

Actually Newton was sorta close but missed an important point.
Gravity only appears to act silently, using your example of space vehicles using it to change direction, a great deal of 'latent' sound is actually produced, the enrgy has to go somewhere, which like latent heat is only released by a change of state.
One needst only observe or hear the latent sound that is explosively released when said space craft or object hits the earth out of control at high speed and changes state.
Latent sound of course, is why we have to plan our descent from altitude carefully in order to allow a managed and careful dissipation of the latent sound built up from our continual fight with gravity enroute.
If we get this and the very final latent noise dissipation stage close to the ground wrong (some call it landing, incorrectly applying the wrong branch of physics), the stupendous release of whats left of the accumulated latent noise can be very embarrasing, indeed fatal in the most extreme cases. We must control this change of state carefully.
One needs only to observe the effects of the release of latent heat in a thunderstorm to have a visual demonstration of the power.
We have seen enough pictures of the effects of the inapproriate release of latent sound to prove this thesis, these unfortunately were not then available to Newton who would have drawn this entirely different conclusion.
The SN (Specific Noise) level of the apple was just not high enough to register above the other ambient parameters.
A simple mistake but understandable in the context of the then technology, given that there were few if any machines capable of generating great volumes of noise. :cool:

Checkboard
25th Jul 2001, 10:10
gaunty, after illuminating our brethren on the science of motion as explained through audio vibration, it may be necessary to begin a thread debunking that electrickery fraud, and explain how smoke generators power our avionics.

Avtrician
27th Jul 2001, 04:17
I have been trying for years to explain to the Great Unwashed (the masses) that there is no such thing as electricity, and that everything is powered by the instantaneous transmition of smoke via copper (for the most part) lines. no-one will believe me, even though when the TV or Stereo lets the smoke out, that it wont go anymore.

Never mind we that Know the real story will just have to be happy in the Knowledge of the truth,

Halle Lua brother. :D

Another thread could be called for.

gaunty
27th Jul 2001, 04:51
Checkers and Avtrician

So it's safe to "come out" on this subject then.

I have always suspected that this is the actual rather than postulated description of the transmission of electrickery.

Like all physics the simple answer is always the best.

I mean all that smoke generated at the power station has to go some where. Sure in the early days they hadn't got the efficiencies in production sorted so a fair bit of the smoke escaped up the chimney stack whereas with the modern plants they have got it down to almost zero.

But thn I don't have a degree in electrical engineering so what would I know? :cool:

I'm with you Avtrician just happy to KNOW.

And when I see the workers milling around the power poles scratching their heads the slow distant smile starts. Smoke is much smarter then they know ;)

pterodactyl
27th Jul 2001, 12:13
Checkboard and Gaunty,
Now you have really let the cat out of the bag!

You can't have smoke without mirrors as any management guru already knows but I suspect they do not have a clear vision of the relationship one to another.

Without mirrors the smoke lacks clear purpose and direction. It is only a mirror that can direct it with the correct lateral and vertical orientation. Being aware that correct verticality is naturally displayed by a mirror some people miss the essential point that lateral rectifiers are required to correct the left/right transposition factor, otherwise the smoke keeps running into itself and goes nowhere. Management types tend to make this error. Pilots, on the other hand, have a thorough understanding of this phenomenon and their smoke always travels smothly along on it's way functioning perfectly.

No doubt this branch of science has been neglected and it is refreshing to see it exposed at last on this forum.

By the way; do you have a Cracked Mirror Drill? A very serious situation can quickly develop if not dealt with promptly with smoke swirling around aimlessly.

[ 27 July 2001: Message edited by: pterodactyl ]

Smudger
28th Jul 2001, 02:11
Thanks Turbofan, I will, even though others before me have posed the questions and sought the answers in a far more informed and eloquent way than I ever could (I'm just a scarebus driver!). I think a certain Mr Hawking has already led the way but it would be fun to hear people of our ilk discuss the subject.

Avtrician
28th Jul 2001, 07:41
My Head is starting to hurt, Im not sure if its because of trying to understand the physics of these great problems that we are trying to solve, or the beer (no cant be the beer).

Smoke , mirrors,???? Yes that combined with sound definitely explains how the Enterprise transporter and the Tardis work, perhaps the black holes work as intergalactic lenses that focus all this energy. Obviously a by product of this is light, which is why we can see to type.

The universe is a wonderful place full of wonderful people ( if they think like us ). I am peace with my self at last. ( However the Kids are on the move and asking for money, so the peace is a little dented at the moment)

Beam me up :p

gaunty
28th Jul 2001, 08:51
pterodactyl and Checkers

I am forever in your debt, as I had not made the connection between pilot mirrors, plural, the management mirror, singular and its interelation with the smooth or chaotic transport of smoke.

I have often worn both hats in my labryinthine :eek: career so far and had never made the connection viz the difference.
I now understand why I always had extreme difficulty in reconciling the differences in the imperatives. It was always lateral rectification, or lack of

You are correct this branch of science has been neglected and I feel a new "management theory", "book", "movie" and "lecture circuit fees" coming on.
Perhaps we should collaborate on the book as the psychobabble and management guru market are ever hungry for the "next big thing".
I will call my publisher on Mon with an outline and negotitate an appropriate advance.
So if you could advise your champagne of choice I will order sufficient in to start the juices going eh?

Folks! remember you saw it here first :cool: