Humor Random Comments Thread

[Linguofreak]

the 10-Megabyte Computer System

For comparison, at a resolution of 1600*900 with 32 bit color, just the image a modern computer displays on screen takes up 5 MB.

 

[MattBaker]

Relevant:

 

[jedidia]

Yeah... those lucky bastards who could afford to dump the content of an entire CD on their drives.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yeah... those lucky bastards who could afford to dump the content of an entire CD on their drives.

I had already felt lucky, that I was able to shove all discs of the Atari ST version of Monkey Island on one 10 MB partition of my 30 MB HDD.... which was bigger than some modern desktop computers....

 

[steph]

Speaking of drive space...I think I've had 3 or 4 "modern" hard drives fail up to now. Except the 6 Gb drive on my old childhood desktop computer, which still soldiers on with its tractor-like sound, and must be nearing 20 years of age.

 

[Urwumpe]

Speaking of drive space...I think I've had 3 or 4 "modern" hard drives fail up to now. Except the 6 Gb drive on my old childhood desktop computer, which still soldiers on with its tractor-like sound, and must be nearing 20 years of age.

Isn't that unusual, even with older hard drives.

if the HDD survived a few months of operation, it will last nearly for ever. Is the same with modern HDDs, but the number of drives that survive the first year feels smaller today.

 

[Quick_Nick]

1am, after watching Prison Architect gameplay: "I think I'll play Dwarf Fortress for an hour... I'll probably get bored in a few minutes anyways."
5am: "...One more season?"

 

[RisingFury]

For comparison, at a resolution of 1600*900 with 32 bit color, just the image a modern computer displays on screen takes up 5 MB.

Modern? Yea, it was, in 2004.

 

[ISProgram]

Relevant:

Whoa.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Scene: Bathroom; Phantomcruiser gets out of the shower and has just finished drying off and has put on his bathrobe (looking very Arthur Dent). Mrs. Cruiser opens the door.

Mrs. Cruiser - (throwing a towel at Phantomcruiser) Here, hang this on the towel rack.

Phantomcruiser - Uhh, OK.

MC - You're doing it wrong.

PC - How am I doing it wrong?

MC - It's inside out.

PC - It's a towel. How can it be inside out?

MC - The seams are visible.

PC - Once again, how exactly can a towel be inside out?

MC - Alli knows what I'm taking about, right Alli?

Alli (hereafter known a Miss 'Cruiser) - Umm. Yes?

MC - (Scowling) Well, she does.

PC - Sounds to me like she has no clue about what you are talking about.

Miss C - Yes and yes.

MC - You're both crazy.

End Scene

 

[Ghostrider]

Are you played by John Cleese perhaps? :thumbup:

 

[Linguofreak]

Modern? Yea, it was, in 2004.

Which only really serves to reinforce my point...

 

[SolarLiner]

In Soviet Russia, ground pushes YOU:

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

The CIA is now on Twitter!

CIA @CIA
We can neither confirm nor deny that this is our first tweet.

:rofl:

 

[ISProgram]

Another post in the continuing thread of randomness

Is a mixture ratio of 2.50 considered fuel-rich or oxidizer rich, with respect to a RP-1/LOX engine? Also, is it "too close" to the ideal (stoichiometric) oxidizer-fuel ratio for RP-1, which is 2.56:1 (since a rocket engine gets too hot and starts to melt/become inefficient)?

I just don't know. And yes, I am working on something...

---------- Post added at 03:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 AM ----------

 

[Quick_Nick]

Is a mixture ratio of 2.50 considered fuel-rich or oxidizer rich, with respect to a RP-1/LOX engine? Also, is it "too close" to the ideal (stoichiometric) oxidizer-fuel ratio for RP-1, which is 2.56:1 (since a rocket engine gets too hot and starts to melt/become inefficient)?

I just don't know. And yes, I am working on something...

What's the mechanism for a rich ratio to burn cooler than stoichiometric? I didn't know about this phenomenon before. I have two semesters until Aerospace Propulsion Systems.

 

[ISProgram]

What's the mechanism for a rich ratio to burn cooler than stoichiometric? I didn't know about this phenomenon before. I have two semesters until Aerospace Propulsion Systems.

If I interpret the bold text correctly, then basically your're (?) wondering the mechanism needed to make either a fuel-rich or oxygen-rich mixture burn more than stoichiometric. I don't know. This is what I meant, in a quote by Dantassi.

One of the things that also determines the fuel to oxidizer ratio of any rocket engine is the temperature of the combustion. All Hydrogen/Oxygen rocket motors run either fuel rich or oxidizer rich for this reason. Burning H2/O2 at stochiometric conditions results in a temperature so high that no material could be used as a combustion chamber for the propellant flows necessary for a rocket engine. During a project I worked on during my Ph.D. attempt, our design team discovered that the closer you could get to perfect combustion the more efficient your rocket motor was, but only up to a point. Beyond that point, you had to spend so much rocket motor mass on cooling that the overall performance of the rocket decreased rapidly.

Particularly, the bolded text is what I'm trying to find out. I'm wondering if 2.50 is close enough to 2.58 that the engine will start having problems from combustion temperature, and if so, what would be a optimum mixture ratio.

And also whether its fuel-rich or oxidizer-rich, since the RD-180, for example burns at 2.72, which is "higher" than 2.58, and is oxygen-rich. The legendary F-1 burns at 2.27, which is fuel-rich. I'm trying to figure out the line between being fuel or oxidizer-rich, since the balanced ratio is obviously the stoichiometric one.

I basically have no way of finding this out.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

From what I've seen, Ox-rich preburners on kerolox engines hqve higher specific impulse, but are more... troublesome. Fuel-rich are more reliable, but come with the downside of being less efficient.

 

[ISProgram]

From what I've seen, Ox-rich preburners on kerolox engines hqve higher specific impulse, but are more... troublesome. Fuel-rich are more reliable, but come with the downside of being less efficient.

Actually, that is more of an attribute of the engine from what I've seen. I don't think fuel mixture is radically important in specific impulse or reliability until you hit around stoichiometric.

For example, Russia makes use of oxygen-rich staged combustion engines. America does the exact opposite, fuel-rich gas generator engines. For the record, I've never heard of a oxygen-rich gas generator engine or a fuel-rich staged combustion. These two countries have radically different engine architectures.


Wikipedia also helps:

There are several advantages to the gas-generator cycle over its counterpart, the staged combustion cycle. The gas generator turbine does not need to deal with the counter pressure of injecting the exhaust into the combustion chamber. This simplifies plumbing and turbine design, and results in a less expensive and lighter engine.

The main disadvantage is lost efficiency due to discarded propellant. Gas-generator cycles tend to have lower specific impulse than staged combustion cycles.

The advantage of the staged, or "closed", combustion cycle is that all of the engine cycles' gases and heat go through the combustion chamber. An alternative design, called a gas-generator cycle, exhausts the turbopump driving gases separately from the main combustion chamber, which leads to a few percent of loss of efficiency in thrust.

Another advantage that staged combustion gives is an abundance of power which permits very high chamber pressures that allow high expansion ratio nozzles. These nozzles give better efficiencies at low altitude.

The disadvantages of this cycle include harsh turbine conditions, exotic plumbing to carry the hot gases, and complicated feedback and control. In particular, running the full oxidizer stream through both a pre-combustor and main-combustor chamber (oxidizer-rich staged combustion) produces extremely corrosive gases.

 

[orbitingpluto]

Gah! The original image is from 1995, and the only additions this particular person added was SpaceX's rockets! :rant:

And the images used for the SpaceX rockets don't fit in well with all the rest either! Thicker outlines than on the other rockets, and less detailed artwork too!
:chainsaw:



Anyway, to abruptly switch topics, I'm currently learning to ride a bike, and today I've managed to actually turn the darn thing without my feet on the ground for support. I'm even able to wobble my way down the street and avoid parked cars!:woohoo:

I'm 23 by the way, old enough to know some people would make fun of me for only starting to learn now, but thankfully old enough to know to ignore them.