More classic Iron man

[system]

@pdf27

[quote=IRONMAN]For crying out loud, Man of Goat, I am afraid it was not in the context of anything theoretical. It was a plainly stated claim, in an attempt to show how much you knew about jet engines. I know you want any who may not have read the now-deleted thread to believe that, but it’s just not so. You’re just twinked over the fact the claim has been proven to have be as wack as a rubber sandwich. Don’t sweat over it. Move on now.

You’re trolling again. Every time I ask you to put up or shut up (with regard to practically libellous statements you make about my qualifications for example) you dodge the question. Now either PM a moderator to get them to verify my qualifications or admit you are a clueless troll and apologise.

And no, the topic has not been deleted or moved - it is still where it originally was, where your statements are all still there for the world to see. Stoaty’s summary of my statement is accurate, as can be seen by anyone who wishes to compare the two.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=216[/quote]

Me troll? Naaa. But obviously you constantly run from one thread to another to try to support your unstanciable falicies of the same subject and badmouth me behind my back like a coward.

Put up or shut up you say? Why, ofcourse! I already have, but since you insist…

Here’s your proof that your wild contention, your so educated and lectured opinion ( :roll: ), that a jet engine “weighs about the same” as another 10 times it’s size:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=6240#6240

[BDL]

He never said it did though Tinwalt, he said a theoretical engine with some of the bits missing (don’t know enough about engines to keep up the proper words) COULD be ten times as big for the same weight.

He never said it could be done with existing engines (which makes all the googling for engine sezies and weights a bit useless eh?), he said that it MAY BE POSSIBLE WITH DIFFERENT DESIGN TECHNIQUES

[system]

@BDL

He never said it did though Tinwalt, he said a theoretical engine with some of the bits missing (don’t know enough about engines to keep up the proper words) COULD be ten times as big for the same weight.

He never said it could be done with existing engines (which makes all the googling for engine sezies and weights a bit useless eh?), he said that it MAY BE POSSIBLE WITH DIFFERENT DESIGN TECHNIQUES

He is not defending the ludicous claim? No, he did not say “it may be possible”. No, it was not a discussion of theoretical anything. The statement was that a jet engine of one size weighs about the same as another 10 times it’s size. Then, when that seemed too perposterous, it was changed to 2 times the size. Next will it be only 1.2 times the size? I only want to clear it up and get to the truth.

And I’d like also for he and a couple of other people to stop making nasty comments about me behind my back in thread they don’t think I will visit. That’s for cowards. I don’t do it. In fact, I don’t even brigh this crap up. But I have been showing some of the outrageous statements to be incorrect. If those persons would not post the same debate in different threads and call me names in the process, why should they expect me to respond?

[Crab_to_be]

Nope, still wrong, fatboy.

Did your philosophy course seriously give you no ability of any kind to read and understand an argument? You have demonstrated time and time again that you simply cannot follow a logical train of thought. Maybe all that dope smoking as a wannabe hippy blew your tiny mind.

[system]

I am beginning to resent the suggestion smokingdope has rotted IRONMANS brain.

IRONMAN has clearly never smoked dope, nor has he drunk anything stronger than root beer, nor has he seen a girls brasserie. Hippie’s are open minded and generally a bit wet and pathetic, backing away from confrontation in a peaceful way.

IRONMAN is unlike anyone we have ever met, I think he has block shoes and his ma, calls him Spethal!

[pdf27]

@IRONMAN

The statement was that a jet engine of one size weighs about the same as another 10 times it’s size. Then, when that seemed too perposterous, it was changed to 2 times the size.

Actually, the reference to 2 and 10 times was referring to centrifugal and axial compressors respectively. Not that you’d know the difference.

[Bladensburg]

We have never established exactly how Ironman defines “size”, have we? I suspect he’s using the vagueness of the term to changes his mind depending on how the discussion is going.
As I see it there are several ways to define the “size” of a jet engine, devided into two broad groups functional values and dimensional values.
Functional values would encompass measurements related to the performance of the engine such as power and thrust. One could say that an engine that generates (say for argument) 1000N of thrust was “bigger” than one generating 800N regardless of it’s actual physical dimensions. Personally I would be loathe to consider such values “size” related but I include them because Ironman might.
Dimensional values are related to the physical attributes of the engine and there are several ways one could define “size”. They include: length, diameter or width of the entire item or just the compressor or other variable part, total volume of the engine or a component thereof and mass.

So then, what is it to be? So that we can make an objective judgement.

B

[system]

@Crab_to_be

Nope, still wrong, fatboy.

Did your philosophy course seriously give you no ability of any kind to read and understand an argument? You have demonstrated time and time again that you simply cannot follow a logical train of thought. Maybe all that dope smoking as a wannabe hippy blew your tiny mind.

Come here and learn that your mouth is bigger than your brain:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=6301#6301

[system]

@pdf27

[quote=IRONMAN]The statement was that a jet engine of one size weighs about the same as another 10 times it’s size. Then, when that seemed too perposterous, it was changed to 2 times the size.

Actually, the reference to 2 and 10 times was referring to centrifugal and axial compressors respectively. Not that you’d know the difference.[/quote]

I don’t eh? Come here and learn that your mouth is bigger than your brain:

[system]

@Bladensburg

We have never established exactly how Ironman defines “size”, have we? I suspect he’s using the vagueness of the term to changes his mind depending on how the discussion is going.
As I see it there are several ways to define the “size” of a jet engine, devided into two broad groups functional values and dimensional values.
Functional values would encompass measurements related to the performance of the engine such as power and thrust. One could say that an engine that generates (say for argument) 1000N of thrust was “bigger” than one generating 800N regardless of it’s actual physical dimensions. Personally I would be loathe to consider such values “size” related but I include them because Ironman might.
Dimensional values are related to the physical attributes of the engine and there are several ways one could define “size”. They include: length, diameter or width of the entire item or just the compressor or other variable part, total volume of the engine or a component thereof and mass.

So then, what is it to be? So that we can make an objective judgement.

B

Come here and learn that your mouth is bigger than your brain:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=6301#6301

[Crab_to_be]

@IRONMAN

[quote=Crab_to_be]Nope, still wrong, fatboy.

Did your philosophy course seriously give you no ability of any kind to read and understand an argument? You have demonstrated time and time again that you simply cannot follow a logical train of thought. Maybe all that dope smoking as a wannabe hippy blew your tiny mind.

Come here and learn that your mouth is bigger than your brain:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=6301#6301[/quote]

I went to the link given, and you failed to address any of the points I rasied. My original contention stands.

[Man_of_Stoat]

@Crab_to_be

n, and you failed to address any of the points I rasied. My original contention stands.

He just reads what he wants to read, and it means to him what he wants it to (viz. the 10x thing in the context of hypothetical redesign deleting the stators magically becomes a claim of 10x in absolute terms with no redesign). Hell, the man still thinks that the M1 carbine is an assault rifle but the M16 is not! And he still hasn’t retracted the “BREN can’t fire tracer or AP because of its curved magazine” crap, amongst other things. But, we shall struggle on, since people believe what they read on the internet, even if it does involve feeding the troll.

[King_Nothing]

Notice how he hasn’t responded to the responses of his audacious false claims of “British bombers were flying saunas and subsequently uncomfortable because they were painted brown?” Must have the mentality of “If I don’t respond, it will go away” wind your neck in, you wanker.

[Cuts]

@Man_of_Stoat

[quote=Crab_to_be]n, and you failed to address any of the points I rasied. My original contention stands.

He just reads what he wants to read, and it means to him what he wants it to (viz. the 10x thing in the context of hypothetical redesign deleting the stators magically becomes a claim of 10x in absolute terms with no redesign). Hell, the man still thinks that the M1 carbine is an assault rifle but the M16 is not! And he still hasn’t retracted the “BREN can’t fire tracer or AP because of its curved magazine” crap, amongst other things. But, we shall struggle on, since people believe what they read on the internet, even if it does involve feeding the troll.[/quote]

But as you should know, tracer rounds get longer in curved magazines.
(Or it seems they do in some cellars !)

[Voluntary_Escaper]

I’ve fired tracer from a curved magazine! :twisted:

[2nd_of_foot]

But did it travel in a curve because it came from a curved mag.

[system]

@King_Nothing

Notice how he hasn’t responded to the responses of his audacious false claims of “British bombers were flying saunas and subsequently uncomfortable because they were painted brown?” Must have the mentality of “If I don’t respond, it will go away” wind your neck in, you wanker.

Your blathering lies make you seem all the more foolish. Your habit of trying to twist people’s word when you get caught in a lie is all over this forum. The embaressment will pass. Be patient.

[2nd_of_foot]

[quote]King_Nothing wrote:
Notice how he hasn’t responded to the responses of his audacious false claims of “British bombers were flying saunas and subsequently uncomfortable because they were painted brown?” Must have the mentality of “If I don’t respond, it will go away” wind your neck in, you wanker.

Your blathering lies make you seem all the more foolish. Your habit of trying to twist people’s word when you get caught in a lie is all over this forum. The embaressment will pass. Be patient.[/quote]

So KN wrote the above in response to your post.

[quote=“2nd_of_foot”]

@IRONMAN

Actully, the American bomber was better because the British bomber was painted a brownish color which absobs more light and that makes it too hot to be comfortable in.

See how much sence that makes? :roll: :roll:

Stiffle yourself!

And if it was so hot in the Lancaster why did we issue them with flying jackets?[/quote]

I wrote the above in response to your post.

Who lied?

[system]

@2nd_of_foot

[quote]King_Nothing wrote:
Notice how he hasn’t responded to the responses of his audacious false claims of “British bombers were flying saunas and subsequently uncomfortable because they were painted brown?” Must have the mentality of “If I don’t respond, it will go away” wind your neck in, you wanker.

Your blathering lies make you seem all the more foolish. Your habit of trying to twist people’s word when you get caught in a lie is all over this forum. The embaressment will pass. Be patient.

So KN wrote the above in response to your post.

[quote=“2nd_of_foot”]

@IRONMAN

Actully, the American bomber was better because the British bomber was painted a brownish color which absobs more light and that makes it too hot to be comfortable in.

See how much sence that makes? :roll: :roll:

Stiffle yourself!

And if it was so hot in the Lancaster why did we issue them with flying jackets?[/quote]

I wrote the above in response to your post.

Who lied?[/quote]

:roll:

[2nd_of_foot]

[quote=“IRONMAN”]

@2nd of foot

[quote]King_Nothing wrote:
Notice how he hasn’t responded to the responses of his audacious false claims of “British bombers were flying saunas and subsequently uncomfortable because they were painted brown?” Must have the mentality of “If I don’t respond, it will go away” wind your neck in, you wanker.

Your blathering lies make you seem all the more foolish. Your habit of trying to twist people’s word when you get caught in a lie is all over this forum. The embaressment will pass. Be patient.

So KN wrote the above in response to your post.

[quote=“2nd_of_foot”]

@IRONMAN

Actully, the American bomber was better because the British bomber was painted a brownish color which absobs more light and that makes it too hot to be comfortable in.

See how much sence that makes? :roll: :roll:

Stiffle yourself!

And if it was so hot in the Lancaster why did we issue them with flying jackets?[/quote]

I wrote the above in response to your post.

Who lied?[/quote]

:roll:[/quote]

and that means what?