Interesting and Humour - page 3305
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The simplest example about dimensional fitting in the space industry:
On the sides of the Kennedy Space Shuttle are two engines 5 feet
wide. The ship's designers would have liked to make these engines even wider, but
they couldn't. WHY?
The reason was that various parts of the ship had to be transported by rail
railroad to the assembly site. This railway line runs through a rather
narrow tunnel in the mountain. The distance between the rails is standard: 4 feet 8.5
inches. So the designers could only make the engines five feet wide,
otherwise it would have been impossible to get them on that road.
This begs the question: why is the standard rail spacing: 4 ft 8.5
inches? Where did this figure come from?
It turns out that the railway in the States, as in England, was designed on the
on the principle of tramways, and the standard rail spacing
tramway.... guess what!!! That's right, 4ft 8.5in. BUT WHY?????
Because the first trams in England were made in the same factory that made
that made horse-drawn trams. And the length of the conky axle was 4ft 8.5in!!!!!
Why was the conky axle 4ft 8.5in???????
Because conkers were made so that their wheels would fit into the tracks
on English roads (so the wheels wear less).
And the distance between ruts throughout England is FOUR FOUR FOUR EIGHT and a half
INJUNDS!!!!!!!
So why is this the case? Because the first roads in Britain
were paved by the Romans, or rather by their chariots. And the axle length
of a standard Roman chariot is, quite correctly, 4ft 8.5
inches!
Well, here we get to the bottom of where that size came from! One thing I don't understand:
in no known system of measure is this length (4 feet 8.5 inches) an integer
is an integer! Why did the Romans want to make the axles of their chariots
to make the axles of their chariots this long?
Here's why: they usually had two horses in such a chariot. And 4ft 8.5
inches was the size of two horses' backsides! To make the axle of the chariot
a longer one would have been uncomfortable because it would have upset the balance.
Hence, here is the answer to the very first question: even now that
man has gone into space, his greatest technical achievements are directly
depend on the size of a horse's ass two thousand years ago!!!!
))))
))) Geez, when are you going to stop talking on this forum and start reading books....
Remember, son, and tell your children - AIRBAS launched its first wide-body aircraft back in 1972!
And it was the A-300 - the FIRST twin-engine widebody aircraft in the world!
"Overhyping" as you understand it, is when you once again write nonsense about issues you understand nothing about, and you get caught and thumbed your nose at it again.
How about a link, specifically? And on the particular 320 aircraft in question?
How about specifically, from the link? And on the specific aircraft 320 under discussion?
And I wasn't discussing the A-320. Transferring assembly under licence to another country is normal international practice for aircraft manufacturers.
Some schtrielnickelpuppers here have stated that"I haven't6 heard of Boeing or Lockheed Martin selling the rights to their UNIQUE products to China." (then in a hurry backwardly highlighting the word "unique" in the sentence) and I gave Boeing and Airbus examples.
We are talking about an aircraft developed over 30 years ago - the only thing unique to the Chinese there is the fuselage design...
The simplest example about dimensional fitting in the space industry:
On the sides of the Kennedy Space Shuttle are two engines 5 feet
wide. The ship's designers would have liked to make these engines even wider, but
they couldn't. WHY?
The reason was that various parts of the ship had to be transported by rail
railroad to the assembly site. This railway line runs through a rather
narrow tunnel in the mountain. The distance between the rails is standard: 4 feet 8.5
inches. So the designers could only make the engines five feet wide,
otherwise it would have been impossible to get them on that road.
This begs the question: why is the standard rail spacing: 4 ft 8.5
inches? Where did this figure come from?
It turns out that the railway in the States, as in England, was designed on the
on the principle of tramways, and the standard rail spacing
tramway.... guess what!!! That's right, 4ft 8.5in. BUT WHY?????
Because the first trams in England were made in the same factory that made
that made horse-drawn trams. And the length of the conky axle was 4ft 8.5in!!!!!
Why was the conky axle 4ft 8.5in???????
Because conkers were made so that their wheels would fit into the tracks
on English roads (so the wheels wear less).
And the distance between ruts throughout England is FOUR FOUR FOUR EIGHT and a half
INJUNDS!!!!!!!
So why is this the case? Because the first roads in Britain
were paved by the Romans, or rather by their chariots. And the axle length
of a standard Roman chariot is, quite correctly, 4ft 8.5
inches!
Well, here we get to the bottom of where that size came from! One thing I don't understand:
in no known system of measure is this length (4 feet 8.5 inches) an integer
is an integer! Why did the Romans want to make the axles of their chariots
to make the axles of their chariots this long?
Here's why: they usually had two horses in such a chariot. And 4ft 8.5
inches was the size of two horses' backsides! To make the axle of the chariot
a longer one would have been uncomfortable because it would have upset the balance.
Hence, here is the answer to the very first question: even now that
man has gone into space, his greatest technical achievements are directly
depend on the size of a horse's ass two thousand years ago!!!!
))))
And I wasn't discussing the A-320. Transferring assembly under licence to another country is normal international practice for aircraft companies.
There have been some streichselnickelpuppers here claiming that"I haven't6 heard of Boeing or Lockheed Martin selling the rights to their UNIQUE products to China." (then in a hurry backwardly highlighting the word "unique" in the sentence) and I gave Boeing and Airbus examples.
We are talking about an aircraft developed over 30 years ago - the only thing unique to the Chinese there is the fuselage design...
You're lying! I did not allocate anything in hindsight. And since you're lying there's no point in talking to you.
I am immensely glad that the Mriya was sold to the Chinese: the largest aircraft in the world, as one of the proofs of the might of the USSR, will live on. And it will never be possible to consign this proof to oblivion.
What's the fun in it? The world's opinion of the Soviet Union will not change anyway, and you know what it is, and it will never change. You, Sana Sanych, are a grown man, even retired (right?), a PhD candidate (or doctoral candidate?), and you can't understand what the USSR was really about? You were paid good money there and that's it, it blindsided you and turned your mind off? Where is the practical implementation of that very image of the ideal Soviet man?
))) Geez, when are you going to stop talking on this forum and start reading books....
Remember, son, and tell your children - AIRBAS launched its first wide-body aircraft back in 1972!
And it was the A-300 - the FIRST twin-engine widebody aircraft in the world!
"Overhyping" as you understand it, is when you once again write nonsense about issues you understand nothing about, and you get caught and poked in the nose ALL over again.
To be perfectly accurate, "released" has the following meaning:
So the A-300:
Read more at:http://avia.pro/blog/airbus-a300-eyrbas-a300
And I didn't discuss the A-320.
How could I not have discussed.... A caravan...
And another question- does Airbus that sold the A320 production licence to China count or not?
What's the fun in it? The world's opinion of the Soviet Union will not change anyway, and you know what it is, and it will never change. You, Sana Sanych, are a grown man, even retired (right?), a PhD candidate (or doctoral candidate?), and you can't understand what the USSR was really about? You were paid good money there and that's it, it blindsided you and turned your mind off? Where is the practical implementation of that very image of the ideal Soviet man?
The country was populated by creators.... and now it's all Abramovich...
This is a matter of principle for me.
And if we are talking about the shortcomings of the USSR, I think I know a lot more about them than you do. But the downsides went with the USSR, and we live on the virtues.