Jump to content

Things you often Wonder


mjmooney

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, a m ole said:

Music festivals are private events where you pay for your ticket and the organisers pay for clean up on the land they’re using - still scummy to leave your shit around but ever so slightly more understandable.

sorta related   ...(  think it was discussed here years back)  but the vast majority of people at cinemas seem to leave all their rubbish behind .. Someone suggested the cinema actually want you to  , similar principal to the music festival I guess

I'm just not comfortable with the whole leave a mess and have someone else clean up after you ..unless its the wife :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bickster said:

(1) I'd rather big companies didn't take credit for other peoples' generosity

(2) Giving to charity per se is not a good thing to do, people really should research the choices they make. There are an awful lot of dubious charities out there, claiming to do good but actually doing harm

Great. But your point was you didn't understand why people would give to a charity that wasn't their choice. When the answer is pretty obvious.

Nobody is forcing you to do it, but it's clear why other people would. I don't really care if Starbucks takes credit for it, I don't donate to charity to get a pat on the back. if they were offering the ability for me to round up a few pence and it go to a charity which they clearly display then I'd be happy to do it (assuming it wasn't a charity I had an issue with). It's not going to stop me donating to other charities that I then research and choose myself. And this conversation started by discussing the charity tins that you'd see on shop counters, so I don't really see the difference. I'm not sure why it's hard to understand why people would do it

Edited by Stevo985
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

What sort of conditions these scummers that left litter all over the local parks yesterday live in

Do they open the fridge , pour themselves a glass of juice and then just chuck the carton on the floor and walk away leaving it there

I'm not normally a  preachy person , i leave that to you leftie  lot here on VT :) , but these pictures from various parks yesterday are pretty disgusting 

This reminds of The Sims when they'd just randomly place their used plates on the floor

Sims won't eat (SOLVED)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Mike, 3 bob is a famous teenage rapper and influencer on myspace and has a gluten intolerance.

Quite sad how he ended up with that nickname though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Seat68 said:

I don’t know if this is true and I know at least one forum member can answer me, I read when I was very young that not even aerospace engineers know for certain why planes stay in the air. As a kid I accepted that but now as an adult I think, well that's bollocks. 

They don't stay in the air. They always come down again!

There are (as far as I'm aware) two different lines of explanation around how wings work. I'm not an aerodramaticist (what we call aerodynamicists, to annoy them), but I think the two theories go like this (simplistically).

1. The air flowing over the top of the aerofoil has to travel further than that under the aerofoil, thus the air pressure above the wing drops compared to the pressure under the wing, leading to an upward force as the pressure wants to equalise itself out.

2. The angle of the wing as it is pushed forwards leads to two vectors - an upwards vector and a backwards vector (part of drag). The upwards vector is what causes the wing (and associated rest of aircraft) to counter gravity.

I'm sure a yahooglemooney will explain much better than that, and with pictures, but that's my take on it. I don't think either of the two schools of thought are universally accepted as "the reason", but to me they both hold true, in terms of scientific principle. I like the second one best, but then I'm more an avionics engineer, so what do I know?.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Drag is reduced thanks to ... lightweight materials

Not really. Drag is friction. Mass affects inertia (bad in terms of thrust needs) and momentum (good in terms of thrust needs), surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, blandy said:

Not really. Drag is friction. Mass affects inertia (bad in terms of thrust needs) and momentum (good in terms of thrust needs), surely?

You might not be an aerodynamicists but you’re probably closer to knowing the answer than I am , I’m just a blagger on the inter web 

Edited by tonyh29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, blandy said:

They don't stay in the air. They always come down again!

There are (as far as I'm aware) two different lines of explanation around how wings work. I'm not an aerodramaticist (what we call aerodynamicists, to annoy them), but I think the two theories go like this (simplistically).

1. The air flowing over the top of the aerofoil has to travel further than that under the aerofoil, thus the air pressure above the wing drops compared to the pressure under the wing, leading to an upward force as the pressure wants to equalise itself out.

2. The angle of the wing as it is pushed forwards leads to two vectors - an upwards vector and a backwards vector (part of drag). The upwards vector is what causes the wing (and associated rest of aircraft) to counter gravity.

I'm sure a yahooglemooney will explain much better than that, and with pictures, but that's my take on it. I don't think either of the two schools of thought are universally accepted as "the reason", but to me they both hold true, in terms of scientific principle. I like the second one best, but then I'm more an avionics engineer, so what do I know?.

All sounds a bit too convenient to me. I’m pretty sure it’s just magic.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s centrifugal force innit.

As the plane gets faster, it moves further from the centre of the earth, hence it goes ‘up’ at take off.

As it slows down, it settles back down closer to the middle, hence it appears to land.

Similar effect to swingball.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, chrisp65 said:

It’s centrifugal force innit.

As the plane gets faster, it moves further from the centre of the earth, hence it goes ‘up’ at take off.

As it slows down, it settles back down closer to the middle, hence it appears to land.

Similar effect to swingball.

 

This sounds like science. I therefore have to accept that as fact. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

This sounds like science. I therefore have to accept that as fact. 

It’s basically the same reason they have to put concrete in the top of tumble driers.

Ford were responsible for that, they didn’t want people finding out they could fly around on a Zanussi for a fraction of the cost of a Cortina. Of course, the Zanussi was always going to be restricted on how far you could go due to the length of cable on the plug. But the principle is sound.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, chrisp65 said:

It’s basically the same reason they have to put concrete in the top of tumble driers.

Ford were responsible for that, they didn’t want people finding out they could fly around on a Zanussi for a fraction of the cost of a Cortina. Of course, the Zanussi was always going to be restricted on how far you could go due to the length of cable on the plug. But the principle is sound.

Seems legit and I have no reason to doubt you. I should have paid more attention in school as these science secrets are beyond my comprehension. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â