h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My apologies to both of you.
I better stop using your names at all, and try to open more windows to see who I am replying to

To be honest, Hooloovoo, I think you're being a bit unfair on non-native English speaker's spelling of a nonsense word, for no readily apparent reason, as well as being a bit precious with the name. So far your contribution to the debate on this subject has been to blithely state that I don't know what I'm talking about. You didn't bother to justify that statement, or to correct me, or to provide an alternative view. Hardly constructive criticism, which I think is what Peer Review is or should be about. Even those here who violently disagree with me (hi guys ) have managed to be constructive. On that basis, I think it's reasonable to assume that any actual debating points in this thread directed at someone with a nine letter name beginning with "H" are directed to me. You've apparently only even become aware of this thread by mistake anyway.

> So far your contribution to the debate on this subject has been to
> blithely state that I don't know what I'm talking about. You didn't
> bother to justify that statement, or to correct me, or to provide
> an alternative view.

I know I haven't, and as I said I'm not going to either.

> You've apparently only even become aware of this thread by mistake
> anyway.

Which is the exact reason why I'm not too bothered about justifying that statement, or correcting you, or providing an alternative view. My only concern regarding this thread is ensuring my name and reputation are not misrepresented, nothing more.

> On that basis, I think it's reasonable to assume that any actual
> debating points in this thread directed at someone with a nine
> letter name beginning with "H" are directed to me

I would also like to assume that, but given mistakes have already been made twice I think its reasonable to assume that they could happen again.

> I think you're being a bit unfair on non-native English speaker's
> spelling of a nonsense word, for no readily apparent reason, as
> well as being a bit precious with the name

In response to this I'd like to quote from your previous entry:


> I would also point out that the only reason that there is any
> confusion here at all is that when Hell decided to go on
> the "attack" (and I must stress that this is his term for it, not
> mine), he couldn't even be bothered to check that he was attacking
> the correct person. Which is interesting given that there is a
> clickable link at the top of every single message I've sent to this
> and every other forum

It's not a question of being precious with the name, it's a question of my name being associated with such a "violent discussion" as Marijn called it in post 33. I don't want my name related to "uncivilised" replies.

On that note, I shall press the post message button, and unsubscribe from this conversation. Hopefully this confusion won't happen anywhere else.

The one and only Hooloovoo (anyone else is just an imposter, regardless of spelling )

Well.

*confused*

The apparent force called centrifugal force is the tendency for an object revolving about another to continue in a direction tangent to the orbit. This does not take a PhD (not intending to be offensive).

The apparent force called centrifugal force is the tendency for an object revolving about another to continue in a direction tangent to the orbit. This does not take a PhD (not intending to be offensive).

Bubbles, don't drag this argument back up please.

Nooooooooooo!

Bubbles,

We did the whole debate about centrifugal force last summer. It really does seem a long, long time ago.

Go here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A575002

for my original entry on Centrifugal Force, inspired by this entry on Gravity (cheers Hell! ). You'll find the (rather lively!) Peer Review thread attached to it, because it (eventually) got into the Edited Guide here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A597152

If you have anything to add on the subject of centrifugal force that hasn't been said before, please do so under one or other of those entries.

Thanks!

H.

hehehe...now I feel dumb. sorry about that. gee.

You cannot help it, it is the system that does not connects that whole discussion to the edited entry.

My wife, bless her, has urged me to exercise my skill (or curse) in pedantics and offer my tuppence worth:

1) There is no such thing as centrifugal force; it is a wicked device dreamed up by busy Physics teachers to overcome the need to explain v complex things to pupils, who by dint of their tender years are too ignornant to appreciate the smothering detail, at this stage of their innocent and delicate lives.

2) A rocket engine carries its own fuel AND the oxygen it needs to promote and sustain combustion. For liquid fed engines: No air (and by extension, Oxygen) in space - No combustion. For solid motors, the oxidizer is incorporated into the carefully shaped solid "fuel" plug.

3) A jet engine on the other hand (and there are many types), combines the fuel carried (usually, although you can get Gas Turbines in ships) by the aircraft, with the Oxygen that sloshes around in the air through which it is moving. This is one reason why pure "jets" tend to be smaller and so much more economic than pure "rockets".

4) Even if you could arrange to "feed" a supply of air into an aircraft's jet engine(s) when it had made it into space, it would be a complete and utter waste of time and money, because there would be no air at sufficient pressure elsewhere for the aircraft's control surfaces (flaps, slots, slats, ailerons, rudders and the like) to push against - making it hard to keep the pointy end towards the front. The only reason the Space Shuttle has wings and stuff is so that it can behave like a slightly aerodynamic and barely controllable anvil after re-entry when it is manoeuvring through the air and hoping to land at the first attempt.

5) The jets that cause slight changes in attitude of the Space Shuttle are operated on another principle, initially by Sir Isaac - every action has an equal an opposite reaction. In this case, little gobs of Hydrazine are released from a series of internal tanks and expand enormously, causing a large "action" for its initially confined volume. However, since the Shuttle has a large inertia (or roughly, mass), the equal and opposite reaction moves the large Shuttle a small bit (usually) in the desired direction. It is aided in this by the lack of air, reducing the friction which would otherwise oppose it - another of Sir Isaac's postulates. He may have been a propellor head, but even amongst his other vices he was a jolly clever chap.

6) Incidentally, Hydrazine is a horrible substance and almost singularly responsible for the desperate "post-landing analysis" on the Telly. This is inevitable, whilst the remaining Hydrazine is emptied from the numerous tanks by carefully protected ground staff into confinement, making it safe for the Shuttle crew to emerge.

7) And lest we forget, this was all kicked off by a rather well written piece on gravity. Three cheers for the author, I say.

Whats so hard about it? they are different people and if it takes a second longer to distinguish between the two then its not the end of the world and don't you think this is a bit off topic: I viewed this to read peoples views on gravity and i find everyone is talking about confusing two similar forum names can be.