My question to you is: Do you use Adobe Lightroom to process your photos? I think this has something to do with it’s registry files.

You have no idea how many years I’ve been searching for the Cocimiento Chicken recipe. I’ve looked through every Mexican cookbook (hello, Dianne Kennedy, how could you leave it out???) and googled it every few years.

HALELUJAH!!!! You are my hero. I lived right down the street from El Cafe (on Roosevelt Way). Many was the night that I dined on Cocimiento Chicken, crossed the street and visited the salt water aquariums at the store across the street, and blissfully made my way home.

Thank you Dave. You’ve answered my prayers.

The vehicle is an impossibility. Imagine that YOU are sitting in the vehicle. With the vehicle moving at a speed EQUAL to that of the wind, you will feel NO WIND on your face or body. You are moving along within a body of air traveling from a high-pressure region to a low-pressure region (wind) so there is no net windspeed at the vehicle. At a speed FASTER than that of the wind, the body of air will act upon the vehicle from the FRONT.

The propeller, attached to the vehicle, experiences the same windspeed as the rest of the vehicle. Therefore, although it is able to propel the vehicle at a sub-wind speed because the wind is back-to-front across the vehicle, the propeller will produce progressively less torque as the vehicle approaches windspeed until zero torque is produced at windspeed since airspeed through the propeller has reached zero. Can a wind turbine turn or produce power at zero windspeed? No. With the vehicle theoretically moving faster than windspeed, the propellor will experience a negative windspeed, i.e. in the REVERSE direction. Geared to the wheels, the propellor’s reversed rotation would theoretically rotate the wheels in reverse.

Another point- some might say “why don’t we just gear the propeller in reverse, so that when the vehicle is moving faster than the wind, the reverse air motion over the propellor will spin the wheels forward? We’ll just start the thing moving faster than the wind, so the wheels will spin forward to start with. As long as the vehicle maintains its speed, the propellor will continue to spin the wheels in the forward direction.”

Not so fast. Just think: how could the vehicle possibly accelerate at this point? In order to accelerate the vehicle, the propeller, coupled to the wheels, would have to increase its speed of rotation. The vehicle must simply accelerate to accomplish this, so that the front-to back wind velocity increases. Simply? BUT HOW CAN IT ACCELERATE WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN THE SPEED OF THE WHEELS? It’s a paradox.

Still, nobody said the vehicle had to accelerate. All it has to do is maintain the faster-than-wind speed that it was started out at. But there’s another factor, isn’t there? DRAG ON THE VEHICLE. Impacting the front of the vehicle, the wind will produce a force in the reverse direction, trying to slow the vehicle down. The vehicle can’t accelerate; it can only move at its original speed. The wind acting upon the vehicle from the front will thus slow it down until it reaches windspeed, at which point the propellor will cease to function due to zero airspeed across it.

In conclusion, it is physically impossible for this vehicle to travel at a speed greater than that of the wind.

“Scandibilly:

That would be a pretty impressive argument if you hadn’t copied and pasted it from all over the internet. Try thinking for yourself next time.”

That link immediately shows only one other place the first point exists on the web than this little blog, and that’s on the Rational Responders page where I put it years ago. It was on an old blog of mine before that, and I encourage people to use it. Try to avoid jumping to conclusions next time, and give a guy a break for not wanting to paraphrase his own work just to provide some novel content for a minor web celebrity’s personal WordPress blog.

… maybe if you think about a plane of constant pressure wind encountering such a device, and that the energy gets built up in the spinning propeller such that — PERHAPS — the effective resistance in the area of the propeller is effectively less than the ambient forward resistance felt by the wind, THEN a similar focusing effect would be manifest … as the wind rushes to that area of lesser resistance.

Again this could be approximated as the ratio of some slightly larger effective area of wind actually being (effectively) funneled to the smaller area of the propeller.

While I was first thinking it might be like a reverse bow wave, it seems like maybe what might really be happening is the above.

Has anyone actually solved this problem anywhere. Surely someone has, no? (I’ve just happened across this here while my girlfriend is ironing before bedtime … so killing some time and haven’t “Googled” around yet on this.)

If you have a certain uniform air velocity over a large circle and funnel the flow down to a smaller circle the air will be compelled to speed up.

But in this case it’s not really able to speed up due to the reverse bow wave pushing air backwards (which is what causes the reverse bow wave, which is what causes a dynamical compression where a larger area of the flow arriving at the propeller is actually pushing the propeller than the area circumscribed only by the spinning propeller due to the reverse bow wave effect).

Pretty cool thing going on here. Fun videos. I am pretty sure some fluid or gas dynamics specialists could probably come up with some analytics about this if they don’t already exist … but a complete solution of this problem may well involve extraordinarily complex mathematics (but could possibly be simplified to a rough estimation of the area of the bow wave vs. the area the propeller traces out, with an estimate of effective higher wind speed — not really faster wind speed, but as if the wind were faster — by that ratio).

If that was the problem, stick to mac, mac is made for people like you.

Hilarity always ensues when people in blog comments try to discredit authors that have done their homework. You should have done yours too. 20/20 is NOT perfect vision, it is just the minimum cut-off for good vision. Most people with glasses will have better than 20/20 and even people that have 20/20 vision without glasses can get glasses to make their vision better as well, though it’s not really as necessary. Therefore, they should definitely strive to make higher DPI screens, not just high enough DPI to only cater to the low end cut-off for good vision. I use glasses myself and have better than 20/20 vision with them and I would love to see or use a screen with high enough DPI for my vision.

and perhaps his books have a common theme of rape is because this occurred frequently in that time period. women were often sold and used for sex and no one would do much about it. plus, rape is pretty much the most horrifying experience someone can go through and it is a topic that isnt seen very often because no one wants to talk about it. i think its great how pillars is a story of a woman who overcomes all that and not only survives but is happy with a loving family and husband.