The Electronic Thing - Page 2

Greg · 08-30-2007, 12:53 AM

It might be easier to just look up the ratio of empty weight to loaded weight for typical seagoing cargo vessels.

A factor of safety of 3 is pretty typical for aircraft; it's 4 for the utility category aircraft like a cargo transport because they have more extreme flight regimes.

For NASA spacecraft, we use 2 for structures verified by analysis and 1.4 for those verified by testing.

yuppiesim · 08-30-2007, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg

Hmm... maybe a "nokie" if it gets stuck with a brand name, which assuredly would become "okie."

Okie... I like that. Of course it's already taken by a group where most of us aren't likely to be able to use a doohickey as fancy as all that.

Miros1 · 08-30-2007, 06:01 AM

Eventually, the infrastructure will catch up with the demand and butt-end-of-nowhere places will get cell towers too!

shorty943 · 08-30-2007, 01:55 PM

We already do.

The joke used to be that, "people don't even go to Tailem Bend to die".

Is that close enough to the Butt end of nowhere?

Edit.

Woops, sorry Greg. You're probably right, the formula's are already set in Iron clad Maritime Law,and they will be in the Guild web site, somewhere. And in the Admiralty Marine Engineering Manual BR 3003. And written up in Beauship, and Veritas Marine, Loydds of London 1A registers and God only know where else.

Greg · 08-30-2007, 04:25 PM

I think I'm either lacking sufficient curiosity or too lazy to hunt down specifications for ships. As I recall, our original goal was to compare how much cargo a water ship can carry versus its empty weight to that of spacecrft. I can guess without looking at the numbers that the comparison would be rather silly.

Kaylyn · 09-01-2007, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg

Yup, I've heard the pop legends about how people call things by their brand names. All soft drinks are cokes, too, right? But in actual life, I have never met a person who did this in casual conversation, just lots of people telling me that other people don't know any better.

Actually, around the house, I really DO call all sodas Coke. I tell Eddie, "Get me a coke," and he hands me a Dr. Pepper (or whatever else we happen to have around). Now in a restaurant I know better than to say "Coke" unless I really want Coke. :P

Greg · 09-01-2007, 02:30 AM

Aha! That's one! Maybe it's a Looziana thing!

shorty943 · 09-02-2007, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg

I think I'm either lacking sufficient curiosity or too lazy to hunt down specifications for ships. As I recall, our original goal was to compare how much cargo a water ship can carry versus its empty weight to that of spacecrft. I can guess without looking at the numbers that the comparison would be rather silly.

Yep, me to.

Even when I was in the job, that was more for the Naval Architect to fret over. I only followed his drawings and instructions, to maintain and run the big toys.

At the moment I am more concerned I don't go overweight on this bus.
No real worry, she weighs in at 8 1\2 ton bare, and is load limited to 14 ton. I have plenty of headroom.
Until the regulation pressed cement waterproof floor sheeting goes down in the wet areas.

That stuff is heavy.
Add a couple of ton in potable water tankage, another 1\2 a ton for grey water storage, ( because you can't just let the plug out of the kitchen sink apparently).
Fridges, freezers, range tops and range hoods, and a barbie plate, prep and servery counter tops and a few cupboards for storage. We will get her close to the max limit for her weight capacity.

I will also add one of them new fangled reversing closed circuit TV systems.

The lady driver has a track record of reversing into things.

And the bus hasn't got a rear window any more.
With 14 ton she can reverse over a house and barely feel it.

Greg · 09-03-2007, 02:45 AM

That gives us a data point for a land bus, at least! It sounds like about 40% of max gross weight is payload.

For comparison, the Space Shuttle stack weighs 4.5 million pounds at liftoff and the max payload it can deliver to the space station is 32,000 pounds, giving a ratio of 0.7%. That's not a fair comparison for rockets in general, though, because the Space Shuttle launches a lot more than just its payload. A typical number for rockets in general is about 3% of the liftoff weight delivered to orbit.

shorty943 · 09-04-2007, 12:38 PM

A fair old part of that weight is in consumables. And don't she consume fuel.

But a good cargo to ship, weight ratio of 3%? Damned expensive freight costs. Mostly burned up in 30 or so seconds.

A linear accelerator, and some extra boost, in the form of pulse jets or something, has to be cheaper. In the long run.

In a sea ship, a lot depends on the internal watertight volume, and therefore, her buoyant volume. This comprises the below the waterline volume, known as the buoyancy, and the above waterline volume, known as the reserve of buoyancy. Any loading will settle the vessel deeper into the water, this has an effect such that, part of the reserve of buoyancy becomes buoyancy. This is not a good thing, it is the reserve of buoyancy which keeps a vessel afloat. Must have more reserve of buoyancy, than total ship weight, or sink.
It still comes to about 40% cargo capacity for any given buoyant volume. Works around specific gravities. Water is 1, and other scientific stuff.
Me, I just read the instructions, then hit it with a nice big hammer. It works for me.

Miros1 · 09-04-2007, 12:55 PM

And when the water comes lapping across the deck, unload part of the cargo!

Um, remember that other thread on "what's west of Alice Springs"? (I think I got the direction right...) How's that story coming along, Greg?

Greg · 09-04-2007, 01:46 PM

Yes, indeed. If we can use a linear electric motor to accelerate the vehicle the efficiency of the launch increases by orders of magnitude. Whether it is cost-effective is still in question, but my hunch that in the long run it will be much less costly even though we'd have to amortize the cost of the accelerator.

shorty943 · 09-04-2007, 02:03 PM

Depreciation on capital infrastructure? Sure, we can sort that through IRS, no worries.
Negative gearing should do the trick.

Capital investment? Start a rumour that the world is about to end, but, NASA have found a nice lush valley on the dark side of Mars. We will have all the rich crazies throwing bribes, I mean donations, at us. They can be on the very first rocket out, (sad, what happened with the experimental navigation system).
Woops, I'm thinking aloud again aren't I.

Greg · 09-04-2007, 02:04 PM

I like it!

shorty943 · 09-04-2007, 02:10 PM

It feels good when a plan starts to make sense, doesn't it.

Greg · 09-04-2007, 02:26 PM

Yup. Now we just need to find some crazies who are rich enough to make this work!

shorty943 · 09-04-2007, 02:44 PM

How about them "Raliens"? There crazy, and rich.

Greg · 09-07-2007, 03:30 PM

"Raliens"? Hmm... "random aliens?"

Miros1 · 09-07-2007, 04:07 PM

Nah. UFO weirdos. They'd like when the navigator system sends them elsewhere.

Greg · 09-07-2007, 10:24 PM

Now I'm even more confused! "Navigator system"?

08-30-2007, 12:53 AM	#21
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	It might be easier to just look up the ratio of empty weight to loaded weight for typical seagoing cargo vessels. A factor of safety of 3 is pretty typical for aircraft; it's 4 for the utility category aircraft like a cargo transport because they have more extreme flight regimes. For NASA spacecraft, we use 2 for structures verified by analysis and 1.4 for those verified by testing. __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

08-30-2007, 04:25 PM	#25
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	I think I'm either lacking sufficient curiosity or too lazy to hunt down specifications for ships. As I recall, our original goal was to compare how much cargo a water ship can carry versus its empty weight to that of spacecrft. I can guess without looking at the numbers that the comparison would be rather silly. __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

09-01-2007, 02:30 AM	#27
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	Aha! That's one! Maybe it's a Looziana thing! __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

09-03-2007, 02:45 AM	#29
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	That gives us a data point for a land bus, at least! It sounds like about 40% of max gross weight is payload. For comparison, the Space Shuttle stack weighs 4.5 million pounds at liftoff and the max payload it can deliver to the space station is 32,000 pounds, giving a ratio of 0.7%. That's not a fair comparison for rockets in general, though, because the Space Shuttle launches a lot more than just its payload. A typical number for rockets in general is about 3% of the liftoff weight delivered to orbit. __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

09-04-2007, 01:46 PM	#32
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	Yes, indeed. If we can use a linear electric motor to accelerate the vehicle the efficiency of the launch increases by orders of magnitude. Whether it is cost-effective is still in question, but my hunch that in the long run it will be much less costly even though we'd have to amortize the cost of the accelerator. __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

08-30-2007, 06:01 AM	#23
Miros1 Goddess for Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NY State Posts: 3,303	Eventually, the infrastructure will catch up with the demand and butt-end-of-nowhere places will get cell towers too!

08-30-2007, 01:55 PM	#24
shorty943 Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 805	We already do. The joke used to be that, "people don't even go to Tailem Bend to die". Is that close enough to the Butt end of nowhere? Edit. Woops, sorry Greg. You're probably right, the formula's are already set in Iron clad Maritime Law,and they will be in the Guild web site, somewhere. And in the Admiralty Marine Engineering Manual BR 3003. And written up in Beauship, and Veritas Marine, Loydds of London 1A registers and God only know where else.

09-04-2007, 12:38 PM	#30
shorty943 Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 805	A fair old part of that weight is in consumables. And don't she consume fuel. But a good cargo to ship, weight ratio of 3%? Damned expensive freight costs. Mostly burned up in 30 or so seconds. A linear accelerator, and some extra boost, in the form of pulse jets or something, has to be cheaper. In the long run. In a sea ship, a lot depends on the internal watertight volume, and therefore, her buoyant volume. This comprises the below the waterline volume, known as the buoyancy, and the above waterline volume, known as the reserve of buoyancy. Any loading will settle the vessel deeper into the water, this has an effect such that, part of the reserve of buoyancy becomes buoyancy. This is not a good thing, it is the reserve of buoyancy which keeps a vessel afloat. Must have more reserve of buoyancy, than total ship weight, or sink. It still comes to about 40% cargo capacity for any given buoyant volume. Works around specific gravities. Water is 1, and other scientific stuff. Me, I just read the instructions, then hit it with a nice big hammer. It works for me.

09-04-2007, 12:55 PM	#31
Miros1 Goddess for Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NY State Posts: 3,303	And when the water comes lapping across the deck, unload part of the cargo! Um, remember that other thread on "what's west of Alice Springs"? (I think I got the direction right...) How's that story coming along, Greg?

09-04-2007, 02:03 PM	#33
shorty943 Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 805	Depreciation on capital infrastructure? Sure, we can sort that through IRS, no worries. Negative gearing should do the trick. Capital investment? Start a rumour that the world is about to end, but, NASA have found a nice lush valley on the dark side of Mars. We will have all the rich crazies throwing bribes, I mean donations, at us. They can be on the very first rocket out, (sad, what happened with the experimental navigation system). Woops, I'm thinking aloud again aren't I.

09-04-2007, 02:04 PM	#34
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	I like it! __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

09-04-2007, 02:10 PM	#35
shorty943 Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 805	It feels good when a plan starts to make sense, doesn't it.

09-04-2007, 02:26 PM	#36
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	Yup. Now we just need to find some crazies who are rich enough to make this work! __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

09-04-2007, 02:44 PM	#37
shorty943 Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 805	How about them "Raliens"? There crazy, and rich.

09-07-2007, 03:30 PM	#38
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	"Raliens"? Hmm... "random aliens?" __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

09-07-2007, 04:07 PM	#39
Miros1 Goddess for Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NY State Posts: 3,303	Nah. UFO weirdos. They'd like when the navigator system sends them elsewhere.

09-07-2007, 10:24 PM	#40
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	Now I'm even more confused! "Navigator system"? __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?