oldtuckunder Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Twas rumoured when the Beagle Mars Lander was lost it was because the American team working on the parachute system were working in Feet whilst the European team were working in Meters Don't know if there was any truth in that but just almost had a similar experience whilst refurbishing a Holley carb!. NB. A word of warning to anyone thinking of doing the same, don't unless you have a lot of free time! If ever there was device designed to gum up when sat with sticky evaporating fuel in it, this is it, acres of gasket material that sets like concrete, hundreds of tiny drillings, and a number of rubber diaphragms to perish. Easy to assemble when new, but a complete pig when dried out. Anyway after the epic cleaning session came the rebuild with a refurbish kit, and to give Holley their due it really does have everything you need bar the solid metal castings, unfortunately its also a bit like an Ikea flat pack in that at the end you have dozens of parts left over that your not sure if you should have used or not. All the assembly instructions talked about torquing this and that bolt to "n" FtLbs which was fine until I reached the euphemistic Power Valve, a device with about a 1/2" thread and a 1" head on it, there were extra instructions to ensure the correct washer was selected and that it must be torqued to between 40-50 Lbs otherwise it will leak! So I mount the plate in the vice set the torque wrench to 20 FtLbs and pull it gently up thinking as I went that this felt a bit much. Wrench went click I take a look and think I don't like the way that fibre washer is being squeezed out a bit. Go back and grab the leaflet and recheck yes torque to 40-50 Lbs to ensure it doesn't leak. Set Torque wrench to 25 Lbs and pull it up, now really not happy about that fibre washer squeezing out! It's night time but as Holley are in the US their Tech Support are still in daytime so I give them a call to ask if the instructions are correct, nice guy knowledgeable about his product, yes 40-50 Lbs was correct, which I questioned saying I didn't think it would take it, at which point he sounds perplexed and says that he normally just put the wrench on and pulled with two fingers and it was about right. At which point I'm imaging a man mountain that can pull 50 FtLbs with two fingers, when he just magically mentions the words "Inch Pounds" which wakes my brain (what little is left) up and I grab the instructions and sure enough the torque setting for this valve was in Inch Pounds unlike all the rest that were in FtLbs. Issue many humble apologies for being a complete idiot and thank him for his time. Of course 50 Inch Pounds is about 4 FtLbs, no wonder he could pull it with two fingers! Anyway removed, no damage done apart from a trashed fibre washer, which was easily replaced, and assembled correctly. But just shows how easily (well at least to me) it is to assume what you are reading, and I guess because I have rarely seen torques quoted in Inch Pounds over here, that just seeing the word Pounds automatically made me think Foot Pounds, even when I re read the instructions. I now have some sympathy with the Beagle team if the rumour was true, fortunately in my case the outcome was better and at least Holley has Landed! Alan Still have to see if we can get it set up correctly, any device that provides acceleration enrichment by just pouring a waterfall of fuel over the throttle plates is going to be fun! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Marc R Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Yes, it show how easily it is to assume what you are reading "or hearing", I faced a similar issue, discussing consumption ( Litre/100 km or Km/litre vs MPG) on a motoring trip in UK meeting a guy from the US and I am French. ... Us or Imp. Gallons !? Regards Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Phil Terry Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 It was actually a Mars orbiter lost by NASA in the late 1990s, but is was due to one subcontractor using Imperial units while NASA (unlike most of the US) uses Metric. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stillp Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 I seem to remember Jimmy Carter promising that the USA would be metric by the end of his presidency... Pete Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Hi Phil, it was indeed the Mars Climate orbiter. Launch 1998, crashed 1999 One set of software was working on pounds.seconds and the other software working in Newton.Seconds Ooops! Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john.r.davies Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Beagle 2 found! NASA's Mars Reconaissance Orbiter fund Beagle last year. It appears to have landed successfully, but not to have opened all it's solar panels, so that the radio aerial under them all could not 'phone home'. http://www.space.com/28286-europe-beagle-2-mars-lander-found.html Sad, but not the first project to fail on or around Mars. http://www.space.com/13558-historic-mars-missions.html Just shows how enormous is the achievement of successful projects. The recent success of ESA's Rosetta mission may show that we are getting better at it. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta And on that, here is one of the most impressive, informative and exciting 'reports' on any space mission. A 3D, interactive, display of the comet that Rosetta went to see, Comet C67/P Churyumov-Gerasimenko. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap161003.html Click on the link, wait a short while to download, see the comet approach and then go away from you, and then use your mouse to roll and rotate the comet, go down and inspect it's surface, or let it spin slowly in front of you. It's a tour de force of observation and animation! JOhn Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Cobbold Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) Space, in the three dimensions sense - x. y. z. - may not be what it seems. http://www.nature.com/news/the-quantum-source-of-space-time-1.18797 "........there is a sense among the practitioners of this field that they have begun to glimpse something real and very important. “I didn’t know what space was made of before,” says Swingle. “It wasn’t clear that question even had meaning.” But now, he says, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the question does make sense. “And the answer is something that we understand,” says Swingle. “It’s made of entanglement.” "Entanglement lets the measurement of one particle instantaneously determine the state of a partner particle, no matter how far away it may be — even on the other side of the Milky Way." The key word here is 'instantaneously'. It means the pair are linked far,far faster than the speed of light. Einsteian found nothing can move faster than that, not even information. Its a huge conundrum. There's no doubt entanglement happens, many lab experiments have measured it. Brian Greene describes entanglement in three minutes: This has lead to the questioning of the nature of the space between the entangled particles. Until recently the three dimensions of space were take as a 'given'. Now their nature is being probed. And it seems space may not be fundamental but 'emergent'. Excsitng times for physics, but impossible to try to explain. And the only book I've found, by Musser, assumes too much background knowledge for me to recommend it. And as yet no good youtubes. Peter Edited October 4, 2016 by Peter Cobbold Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tthomson Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 F*** me! I've fallen through a wormhole and ended up in a parallel universe. It is the only explanation why the TR Register forum is discussing astrophysics. Long may it continue! TT Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Cobbold Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) Thanks Tony ( I think), Peter Quantum mechanics is the nuts and bolts of electrickery, essential in the modern world. But entanglement is a part of it, experimentally proven, yet so weird to the point that no-one understands it, even the world's best physicists. Brian Greene again: The role of entanglement in determining space may involve Maldacena's discovery, quote: " Maldacena discovered that the boundary and the bulk are completely equivalent. Like the 2D circuitry of a computer chip that encodes the 3D imagery of a computer game, the relatively simple, gravity-free equations that prevail on the boundary contain the same information and describe the same physics as the more complex equations that rule the bulk." So a 2D surface can replicate a 3D world, mathematically. This story has branched out into proposals that our universe is a holographic 'projection' from information carried on an unseen 2D surface. This video tries to convey the idea of the 'holographic universe', using black holes as an analogy. When stuff falls into black hole all the information that describe the particles ( eg mass, momentum, spin etc) is plastered over the surfae on the black hole, in unknown ways. Watch this space surface. Peter Edited October 4, 2016 by Peter Cobbold Quote Link to post Share on other sites
McMuttley Posted October 5, 2016 Report Share Posted October 5, 2016 My wiring loom is a product on this 'entanglement' For sale "OUT OF THIS WORLD TR3a" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Larnder Posted October 5, 2016 Report Share Posted October 5, 2016 Hi Alan I too have a 4 barrel Holley carb on my Chev 283 engine, and yes I have a set of replacement joints, far more than you need, because I think it serves for different sized Hollies. On my small torque wrench it has a scale for inch/pounds as well, so I double checked what I thought I had read before I pulled it up, fortunately I was reading the destructions correctly. As they say " When all else fails, read the instructions", sound advice! Dave. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dic Doretti Posted October 7, 2016 Report Share Posted October 7, 2016 I think they may have found the Beagle. It is buried in mud in Paglesham Creek just off the River Crouch. Cheers Dic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Cobbold Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 I think they may have found the Beagle. It is buried in mud in Paglesham Creek just off the River Crouch. Cheers Dic And its being left to decay under the mud....sad. To a biologist the Beagle is more important than the Mary Rose. Peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john.r.davies Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 See http://www.rochforddistricthistory.org.uk/page_id__267.aspx Darwin's 1831-36 voyage in Beagle was her second of three important exploratory missions. In 1845 HMS Beagle was retired to Coast Guard watch duty. Eventually, in 1863, she was sold to be broken up. The site where her remains were left has been investigated, as far as is possible in tidal waters without a dam around the excavation. The value of the Mary Rose is that she sank with almost all hands, a new ship, fully appointed for war, whereas the Beagle was, by the time of her sale to breakers, a worn out ship used as a hulk. Her story and her role in Darwin's Theory is the most important in biology, but her value as archaeology is minimal. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dic Doretti Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 Thank you John for that interesting article. I heard they were looking for exotic rocks from the Pacific used for ballast. Cheers Dic (a Dengie boy) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 For those unaware, try Cocker Freeman . . . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYvcWouqyZY Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Cobbold Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 Oh golly oh gosh come lie on the couch with nice bit of posh from Burnham on Crouch Dont recall BoC being posh, apart from the Royal Corinthian. More Dingy Hundreds than Dengie Hundreds. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnG Posted October 10, 2016 Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 Hi Phil, it was indeed the Mars Climate orbiter. Launch 1998, crashed 1999 One set of software was working on pounds.seconds and the other software working in Newton.Seconds Ooops! Roger When Concorde was developed and built, the UK was imperial, whilst our friends across the channel were metric. As I remember, everything went together well and the aircraft flew well, until Air France made a bit of a mess of some routine undercarriage maintenance Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Cobbold Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 Not looking good for the follow-up: radio silence. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37707776 Peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
littlejim Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 Looks like an ad for a fishing program. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Cobbold Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 Factor of 10 error? "....the retrorockets that were due to switch on immediately afterwards are seen to fire for just three or four seconds. They were expected to fire for a good 30 seconds." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37715202 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
oldtuckunder Posted October 24, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2016 Factor of 10 error? "....the retrorockets that were due to switch on immediately afterwards are seen to fire for just three or four seconds. They were expected to fire for a good 30 seconds." Now how many times have we heard the excuse "I was sure I had enough fuel in the tank to get there" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Cobbold Posted October 24, 2016 Report Share Posted October 24, 2016 :) It's likely they had more than enough fuel: http://phys.org/news/2016-10-mars-reconnaissance-orbiter-views-schiaparelli.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john.r.davies Posted October 24, 2016 Report Share Posted October 24, 2016 It's the curse of Mars - see my post 6. We get so used to extraordinary engineering success in space probes. Even the Apollo programme was stopped because the public lost interest when landings ON THE MOON because 'routine'. And the Shuttle programme was stopped because of engineering failures. It's dangerous out there. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Cobbold Posted November 24, 2016 Report Share Posted November 24, 2016 (edited) A 'computer glitch': http://phys.org/news/2016-11-glitch-blamed-european-mars-lander.html "....a computer that measured the rotation of the lander hit a maximum reading, knocking other calculations off track." That's not a glitch its cr*p design. Peter Edited November 24, 2016 by Peter Cobbold Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.