• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

The Coffee Shop

  • Thread starter The Fallen Angel
  • Start date
Go to CruxDreams.com
Darkprincess69 said:
Then I could row a boat all the way from South Wales over to Glastonbury (probably quicker than doing it by road given the stupid 20mph restrictions around here and the arbitary 50mph limits of much of the M4 in Wales - bear in mind that while Glastonbury is a mere 35 miles from where I live - as the crow flies - it's a good 100 miles by road, because they built the Severn Bridge in the wrong place)

Back in the mid 80s there used to be a passenger hovercraft service running from Barry on the South Wales coast (about 12 miles from where I live) over to Weston Super Mare, which would be far more practical if only it had the ability to carry cars, such as the large hovercraft that used to operate between Dover and Calais, before the Channel Tunnel devastated their business model.

Sadly it was operating an old SRN-6 hovercraft that could only carry around 15-20 people and no cars, making it practically useless for anyone who wanted to do anything more than just visit the seaside "entertainments" :(

While the service was reasonably popular, it failed to make any money and was scrapped after a season or two :(

View attachment 1439477View attachment 1439478View attachment 1439480
Photos grabbed from here;
Click to expand...
I lived in Newport in the 50s and early 60s, and then it was either using the train, or if you wished to drive, trusting the infrequent and unreliable Aust Ferry or going the long way round via Gloucester and there was no M4 or M5.
 
Loxuru said:
I had more hope and confidence in the world as depicted in '2001 a Space Odyssee', but I am still impaciently waiting for my flying car and my holiday on the Moon!:loco:
OK! As predicted 60 years ago, I have a home computer now, but I suspect, the bloody thing is continuously spying on me!:icon_pc:
Click to expand...
Well yes as they say the future ain't what it used to be!

(This has spawned the genre of 'retro-futurism', it's actually interesting though to look at the characteristics of old visions or fears, for futures that never came ....they say much about the society of their time, and so will ours)

In general the big gains have been in miniaturized tech while the larger scaled things have remained more similar than expected.... it might feel a little bit disappointing that half a century ago you could step into a brand new jet airplane and that might be a Boeing 737 .... and today you can step into a brand new jet airplane and it's a Boeing 737. Then again planes reflect aerodynamics and that the basic layouts haven't changed much since the 707 isn't so surprising until someone comes up with antigravity engines or so...

Also the 'Cybertruck' just looks like a low-polygon rehash of a Matra Simca Bagheera but at least one thing has been delivered... in all the old science fiction classics, space rockets would descend by slowly sinking towards the surface of the planet on their own fierey exhaust and then gently land. Then the space cowboy or little green man with a bubble helmet would step out on a ramp. That landing style at least works nowadays!
 
malins said:
it might feel a little bit disappointing that half a century ago you could step into a brand new jet airplane and that might be a Boeing 737 .... and today you can step into a brand new jet airplane and it's a Boeing 737.
Click to expand...
That's rather a conservative kind of branding, I think. Any new generation of such aircraft often need a complete redesign of the model. Composite materials, more efficient engines, control systems, all have been introduced since the first models. With designing the 737 Max, however, Boeing has stepped into its own branding trap, since they marketed it as similar as the previous generation, telling the airlines they could save on training costs for the crews (the Max had a different weight distribution, and hence different flying characteristics by the placement of the engines). The digital interface between old and new, allowing it to fly them like the old models, failed however, with dramatic consequences.
 
Loxuru said:
telling the airlines they could save on training costs for the crews (the Max had a different weight distribution, and hence different flying characteristics
Click to expand...
absolutely true, trying to game the system by pretending it was basically the same plane that would handle the same way, and accept unholy compromises in the design to uphold that illusion.

But in very general terms ... sure today we have high-bypass turbofans but if you compare this pic from 1954
Boeing_Model_367-80.jpg
with airliners of today, 70 years later, it's a recognizable continuity. And insofar as it reflects a working aerodynamic implementaiton there's no reason to change it, saucers are the best shape only if you have the negative-gravity drive...
 
Mikerytel said:
https://imgur.com/a/hWP5mEe
I had to look this up after I posted the image because I wasn’t sure what type of operator she was but I discovered she was a ham radio operator
Click to expand...
Supposedly in the code breaking huts targeted at the Nazi Enigma code at Bletchley Park during World War II the computers ("bombes") gave off so much heat that consideration was given to letting the female operators work topless. Maybe that is what is going on here. Old electronics gave off a lot of waste heat (our chips do too, relative to area, and cooling them is a major design consideration).
 
Talking of the continuity of Boeing 737 reminds me of that of another iconic Boeing aircraft:

17061788295588.jpeg

It's in Korean, so I'll add a quick translation:
What people think bombers looked like 60 years ago.
Bombers they actually used 60 years ago.

What people think bombers looks like now.
Bombers they actually use now.

What people think bombers will look like 60 years later.
Bombers they'll use 60 years later, which was planed to be in service until 2092.
Click to expand...
 
fallenmystic said:
Talking of the continuity of Boeing 737 reminds me of that of another iconic Boeing aircraft:

View attachment 1440892

It's in Korean, so I'll add a quick translation:
Click to expand...
Ah, the B-52. Known to its crews as BUFF (Big Ugly Fat Fucker). Introduced in 1955, it has served in every US conflict since. With upgrades in avionics and engines, the Air Force anticipates it will remain in serve until 2050, when it might be flown by the great grand children of the men who flew them first.
b52.jpg
 
malins said:
absolutely true, trying to game the system by pretending it was basically the same plane that would handle the same way, and accept unholy compromises in the design to uphold that illusion.

But in very general terms ... sure today we have high-bypass turbofans but if you compare this pic from 1954
View attachment 1440860
with airliners of today, 70 years later, it's a recognizable continuity. And insofar as it reflects a working aerodynamic implementaiton there's no reason to change it, saucers are the best shape only if you have the negative-gravity drive...
Click to expand...
A little trivia note... both the 727 and the 737 borrowed heavily from the 707. The 727 used much of the 707 design forward of the wing mounts. The original 737 was basically a grossly shortened and re-engined version of the 707 when it was born. Ironically later models of the 737 can carry more people than the 707 the original 737 borrowed from..
Naraku said:
Ah, the B-52. Known to its crews as BUFF (Big Ugly Fat Fucker). Introduced in 1955, it has served in every US conflict since. With upgrades in avionics and engines, the Air Force anticipates it will remain in serve until 2050, when it might be flown by the great grand children of the men who flew them first.
View attachment 1440894
Click to expand...
Interesting note the last 'new' B-52 was delivered in 1962. Tree wonders how many CF members were not even born then?!?!?!
 
Mikerytel said:
https://imgur.com/a/hWP5mEe
I had to look this up after I posted the image because I wasn’t sure what type of operator she was but I discovered she was a ham radio operator
Click to expand...
These first computers had enormous heating power. Conrad Zuse's first computer, operated with relays, only had 4 kW power consumption and a clock frequency of 5 -10 Hz (yes Hz not GHz). In contrast, one of the first computers powered by electron tubes, "Eniac", had 80 kW for tube heating, 40 kW for the tube current and 20 kW for the fans. This means that the computer room was heated by at least 120kW.:firedevil:
 
Hugin&Munin said:
These first computers had enormous heating power. Conrad Zuse's first computer, operated with relays, only had 4 kW power consumption and a clock frequency of 5 -10 Hz (yes Hz not GHz). In contrast, one of the first computers powered by electron tubes, "Eniac", had 80 kW for tube heating, 40 kW for the tube current and 20 kW for the fans. This means that the computer room was heated by at least 120kW.:firedevil:
Click to expand...
Just to compare : an average person radiates about 100 W of heat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom