RE: The great military genius (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

thompsonx -> RE: The great military genius (4/26/2017 4:20:54 PM)


ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx


In the paper from which that graph was taken the author describes the parameters of a 1480' high speed transport ship, which is more than 400' longer than an aircraft carrier, that cruises at 50kts with props that are half again smaller. It is stable in seas with 35' waves.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


The paper defines a theoretical ship which has Water Jets as it's primary form of propulsion


It most certainly does not. It list water jets as a possible alternative to the 20' props under discussion and list the issues that need to be dealt with if the more efficient water jets are to be used.


- as it admits that external prop designs cannot produce that much thrust as the required RPM for external props to achieve to generate that
amount of thrust would cause the propellers to cavitate to the point that they explode. Not to mention that no engine on the plant could manage
that HP for prolonged periods of time.

I would suggest you get an adult to help you with the big words because it says just the opposite.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid





thompsonx -> RE: The great military genius (4/26/2017 4:24:07 PM)

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

phoquing

Thompson, just a quick question in passing, do you say 'phoquing' instead of 'fucking' because you want to avoid appearing rude?

Please take a moment to reflect on your query. Who have you encountered on this board who might be considered less polite than myself?



thompsonx -> RE: The great military genius (4/26/2017 4:27:58 PM)


ORIGINAL: InfoMan


And how do they track the ship when the sun sets?
Radar and Thermal imaging is not only unreliable in open water, but also are not available on every satellite.

You clearly have little understanding of radar or ir.

You're looking at some 5-8 hours of 'too dark to see' with each day... in which time the ship can move the 170 miles in any direction...
That is a search area of ~90,000 square miles.... that is the area of the State of Minnesota. You'd have to scan every square mile and find a pin-prick of a ship Every Single Day.

How puerile of you to believe that to be a difficult task.




thompsonx -> RE: The great military genius (4/26/2017 4:40:16 PM)


ORIGINAL: InfoMan



IFF stands for Identify Friend or Foe, and is a transponder tag...
How about you tell us how you think IFF works, because you seem to think something which is clearly not the truth.

The interrogator lights off and the transponder responds. That is an electronic signal that can be intercepted.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.



InfoMan -> RE: The great military genius (4/26/2017 4:54:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx


In the paper from which that graph was taken the author describes the parameters of a 1480' high speed transport ship, which is more than 400' longer than an aircraft carrier, that cruises at 50kts with props that are half again smaller. It is stable in seas with 35' waves.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


The paper defines a theoretical ship which has Water Jets as it's primary form of propulsion


It most certainly does not. It list water jets as a possible alternative to the 20' props under discussion and list the issues that need to be dealt with if the more efficient water jets are to be used.


- as it admits that external prop designs cannot produce that much thrust as the required RPM for external props to achieve to generate that
amount of thrust would cause the propellers to cavitate to the point that they explode. Not to mention that no engine on the plant could manage
that HP for prolonged periods of time.

I would suggest you get an adult to help you with the big words because it says just the opposite.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid





The paper was written in 2003, It readily admits, it talks at length the theoretic behind propeller based systems, but still admits that propellers have problems:

Conventional subcavitating
propellers, such as the Gawn-Burrill (G/B) series (Ref.6) have been installed on planing
craft operating at speeds up to approximately 38 kts . At higher speeds these propellers
experience severe cavitation erosion problems and thrust breakdown.

Now while it does try and paint a positive light for a potential alternative:
Fortunately, there is
a developed series that can accommodate cavitation without the serious performance
deterioration associated with the G/B series. This is the Newton-Rader (N/R) series
(Ref.7) where the propeller develops a cavity over more than 85% of the blade surface
which terminates beyond the trailing edge.

those where in development at the time... but:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233616538_Performance_Prediction_of_Newton-Rader_Propellers

The results indicate that the NR propellers can achieve high efficiency in both the fully wetted and cavitating regimes if the blades exhibit only back cavitation. However, significant reduction in efficiency was observed in all cases when face cavitation develops.

meaning that the problem would still arise. It would basically shake itself apart.



thompsonx -> RE: The great military genius (4/26/2017 7:38:57 PM)

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx





In the paper from which that graph was taken the author describes the parameters of a 1480' high speed transport ship, which is more than 400' longer than an aircraft carrier, that cruises at 50kts with props that are half again smaller. It is stable in seas with 35' waves.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


The paper defines a theoretical ship which has Water Jets as it's primary form of propulsion


It most certainly does not. It list water jets as a possible alternative to the 20' props under discussion and list the issues that need to be dealt with if the more efficient water jets are to be used.


- as it admits that external prop designs cannot produce that much thrust as the required RPM for external props to achieve to generate that
amount of thrust would cause the propellers to cavitate to the point that they explode. Not to mention that no engine on the plant could manage
that HP for prolonged periods of time.

I would suggest you get an adult to help you with the big words because it says just the opposite.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid





The paper was written in 2003,

The link you provided is from 1961. This from the 2003 paper:

"The design of these propellers is based upon a well documented propeller series and they are certainly capable of being delivered in the present
time frame with a minimum of research and development. This is in sharp contrast with the large development efforts involved in delivering
suitable waterjets for this application."

You are being less than honest in your rebuttal.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


It readily admits, it talks at length the theoretic behind propeller based systems, but still admits that propellers have problems:

He does not admit shit. He points out the issues with one type of prop. while discussing the functionality of the other.

Conventional subcavitating
propellers, such as the Gawn-Burrill (G/B) series (Ref.6) have been installed on planing
craft operating at speeds up to approximately 38 kts . At higher speeds these propellers
experience severe cavitation erosion problems and thrust breakdown.

Now while it does try and paint a positive light for a potential alternative:
Fortunately, there is
a developed series that can accommodate cavitation without the serious performance
deterioration associated with the G/B series. This is the Newton-Rader (N/R) series
(Ref.7) where the propeller develops a cavity over more than 85% of the blade surface
which terminates beyond the trailing edge.

those where in development at the time... but:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233616538_Performance_Prediction_of_Newton-Rader_Propellers

The results indicate that the NR propellers can achieve high efficiency in both the fully wetted and cavitating regimes if the blades exhibit only back cavitation. However, significant reduction in efficiency was observed in all cases when face cavitation develops.

meaning that the problem would still arise.


First your cite is dated 1961. The paper you cribbed the graph from is from 2003...you seem to like playing fast and loose with the truth.

It would basically shake itself apart.

That would by your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion and is not mentioned anywhere in the referenced discussion.
This is what the referenced paper does say:

"The design of these propellers is based upon a well documented propeller series and they are certainly capable of being delivered in the
present time frame with a minimum of research and development. This is in sharp contrast with the large development efforts involved in
delivering suitable waterjets for this application."

You have yet to validate any of your opinions while I have cited proof of mine with scientific proof based on the laws of physics and the
principles of naval architecture.
We are still waiting for you to tell us why and in what direction & speed aircraft carriers turn during launch and recovery operations. Once you figure
that out you may tumble to why the 'advertised speed of aircraft carriers is 35+ kts.'






InfoMan -> RE: The great military genius (4/26/2017 8:32:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

First your cite is dated 1961. The paper you cribbed the graph from is from 2003...you seem to like playing fast and loose with the truth.


That is a series number, not a date you fucking moron.
What do you think the Nvidia 1080 was made in the year 1080?

If you can't wrap your pathetic little mind around that, what hope do you have in understanding the basics of SL Ratios?



thompsonx -> RE: The great military genius (4/26/2017 9:18:03 PM)

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

First your cite is dated 1961. The paper you cribbed the graph from is from 2003...you seem to like playing fast and loose with the truth.

That is a series number, not a date you fucking moron.


Once again it is you who is the phoquing moron and are wrong once again. It is a reference to a paper written by newton and rader in 1961

If you can't wrap your pathetic little mind around that, what hope do you have in understanding the basics of SL Ratios?

It would appear that it is your pathetic little mind that is having trouble with the facts.
This is the first line from your cite:
In this work, a numerical method is presented for the hydrodynamic and hydroelastic analysis of
Newton-Rader (NR) propellers (Newton & Rader 1961).

This is the paper that your cite was referencing which was published in 1961

Performance Data Of Propellers For High-Speed Craft -- R. N. Newton, H. P. Rader,
Quarterly Transactions of The Royal Institute Of Naval Architects, April 1961, Vol. 103, No. 2

Now that you have been disabused of your ignorance would it be possible for you to address
the issues at hand?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.



InfoMan -> RE: The great military genius (4/27/2017 3:05:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

First your cite is dated 1961. The paper you cribbed the graph from is from 2003...you seem to like playing fast and loose with the truth.

That is a series number, not a date you fucking moron.


Once again it is you who is the phoquing moron and are wrong once again. It is a reference to a paper written by newton and rader in 1961

If you can't wrap your pathetic little mind around that, what hope do you have in understanding the basics of SL Ratios?

It would appear that it is your pathetic little mind that is having trouble with the facts.
This is the first line from your cite:
In this work, a numerical method is presented for the hydrodynamic and hydroelastic analysis of
Newton-Rader (NR) propellers (Newton & Rader 1961).

This is the paper that your cite was referencing which was published in 1961

Performance Data Of Propellers For High-Speed Craft -- R. N. Newton, H. P. Rader,
Quarterly Transactions of The Royal Institute Of Naval Architects, April 1961, Vol. 103, No. 2

Now that you have been disabused of your ignorance would it be possible for you to address
the issues at hand?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.



oh it isn't ignorance, it was bating.
to make you say what you said.

The Newton-Rader propeller is a theoretical propeller which has never been constructed, It was theorized in 1961 and later constructed digitally in 1999 where it was tested in digitally. This propeller has since been called a 'Newton-Rader Propeller'

[image]http://atljsoft.com/html_help/images/Composite%20NR%20geometry.gif[/image]

This Propeller does not exist - and in the paper i cited, he is literally referencing this non-existent propeller to function on his non-existent theoretical ship.

As such - when you state:

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


In the paper from which that graph was taken the author describes the parameters of a 1480' high speed transport ship, which is more than 400' longer than an aircraft carrier, that cruises at 50kts with props that are half again smaller. It is stable in seas with 35' waves.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


As a counter point as to why Current Existing displacement ships cannot achieve high speeds.

You basically referenced something that Does Not Exist and said it is Proof of why current ships should be able to go faster then they are Physically Possible of currently going.


Now that we are at this point...
Be sure to denounce everything i said as opinion while not producing a single shred of evidence yourself, not doing the math yourself, and continuing to ignore fact and logic while using stupid words which you think make you smart because that is all you're capable of doing. God forbid you actually open up a book and educate yourself.



thompsonx -> RE: The great military genius (4/27/2017 8:29:04 AM)


ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

First your cite is dated 1961. The paper you cribbed the graph from is from 2003...you seem to like playing fast and loose with the truth.

That is a series number, not a date you fucking moron.


Once again it is you who is the phoquing moron and are wrong once again. It is a reference to a paper written by newton and rader in 1961

If you can't wrap your pathetic little mind around that, what hope do you have in understanding the basics of SL Ratios?

It would appear that it is your pathetic little mind that is having trouble with the facts.
This is the first line from your cite:
In this work, a numerical method is presented for the hydrodynamic and hydroelastic analysis of
Newton-Rader (NR) propellers (Newton & Rader 1961).

This is the paper that your cite was referencing which was published in 1961

Performance Data Of Propellers For High-Speed Craft -- R. N. Newton, H. P. Rader,
Quarterly Transactions of The Royal Institute Of Naval Architects, April 1961, Vol. 103, No. 2

Now that you have been disabused of your ignorance would it be possible for you to address
the issues at hand?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.



oh it isn't ignorance, it was bating.
to make you say what you said.

The Newton-Rader propeller is a theoretical propeller which has never been constructed,

Wrong again dumbass. It has been constructed and tested.

It was theorized in 1961
and later constructed digitally in 1999 where it was tested in digitally.


Wrong again dumbass it was constructed and tested in 1961.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


This Propeller does not exist -

Yes it does dumbass


and in the paper i cited, he is literally referencing this non-existent propeller to
function on his non-existent theoretical ship.

You had asked to see the math which I was more than happy to supply.

As such - when you state:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


In the paper from which that graph was taken the author describes the parameters of a 1480'
high speed transport ship, which is more than 400' longer than an aircraft carrier, that cruises at 50kts with props
that are half again smaller. It is stable in seas with 35' waves.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


As a counter point as to why Current Existing displacement ships cannot achieve high speeds.
You basically referenced something that Does Not Exist and said it is Proof of why current ships should be able
to go faster then they are Physically Possible of currently going.

Actually I did not say that. I pointed out that france made 45kt destroyers in the 1930's with significantly
shorter water line than a carrier.
Your unsubstantiated claim that modern carriers are not semi-displacement hulls is why they are limited to
speeds less than those destroyers.


Now that we are at this point...
Be sure to denounce everything i said as opinion


Ok...your opinion is unsubstantiated opinion and as such is worth a little less than the price of used shit paper.

while not producing a single shred of evidence yourself,

Once again I prove that you have your head up your ass with valid cites instead of opinions of self proclaimed
missinfoman.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/307140055/Performance-Data-of-Propellers-for-High-Speed-Craft-Newton-Rader






subrob1967 -> RE: The great military genius (4/27/2017 9:42:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

The Vinson is capable of covering at least 600+ miles a day, at cruising speed, so depending on which waters she was operating in, ( usually those exercises are held in the Coral Sea), I still hold she could easily have passed through the Sunda Strait by about the 11th or 12th at the latest.


The Vinson can cover that distance, her support ships cannot.



thompsonx -> RE: The great military genius (4/27/2017 9:51:38 AM)


ORIGINAL: subrob1967
ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

The Vinson is capable of covering at least 600+ miles a day, at cruising speed, so depending on which waters she was operating in, ( usually those exercises are held in the Coral Sea), I still hold she could easily have passed through the Sunda Strait by about the 11th or 12th at the latest.


The Vinson can cover that distance, her support ships cannot.


Which of the vinson's support ships cannot make 20 kts? Which is the speed a ship has to travel at to make 600 miles a day.



thompsonx -> RE: The great military genius (4/28/2017 5:31:45 AM)


ORIGINAL: InfoMan


Still waiting sweet cheeks



WickedsDesire -> RE: The great military genius (4/28/2017 12:40:43 PM)

You all bore me



jlf1961 -> RE: The great military genius (4/28/2017 1:04:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

The Vinson is capable of covering at least 600+ miles a day, at cruising speed, so depending on which waters she was operating in, ( usually those exercises are held in the Coral Sea), I still hold she could easily have passed through the Sunda Strait by about the 11th or 12th at the latest.


The Vinson can cover that distance, her support ships cannot.



quote:

Earlier this month, as tensions with North Korea were flaring, the Carl Vinson was said to be sailing north, toward the peninsula, when it was actually heading south, toward the Indian Ocean.
source


Now in an earlier post, I pointed out that the Navy typically has ships resupply and address any maintenance concerns of the group or ship commander when they redeploy a ship or battle group.

I also pointed out that with the exception of her home port of Pearl Harbor, depending on what ordinance carried would determine where such resupply and repair work could be done.

Due to treaties in place, some of the ports that US Navy ships call on in the Pacific are not available to warships carrying nuclear weapons.

Now logically, the Carl Vinson battle group would have made the cruise to the Korean peninsula via a stop at Yokosuka Fleet base at Yokosuka Japan, UNLESS the Carl Vinson was carrying 'non conventional' ordinance.

In which case she and her battle group would go to Diego Garcia, take off the unconventional ordinance and go with a conventional load out since she would be operating near Japan and the logical port for any resupply or repair would be the Yokosuka fleet base.

Japan does not allow us ships carrying nuclear weapons in her ports except under certain conditions, meaning the ship needs to make port to conduct necessary repairs to ensure the safety of the ship and crew and such stops are limited to the amount of time needed to make the minimum needed repairs for the ship to make a non regulated port safely.

Of course Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group Deployment Extended for Korea Presence Operations makes the whole thing as clear as mud, since the announced deployment by president Trump and the date that the battle group actually started heading for Korea does indicate that the ship and battle group were otherwise indisposed.

Which seems to indicate that a change in carried ordinance was done.



thompsonx -> RE: The great military genius (4/28/2017 2:06:56 PM)


ORIGINAL: jlf1961


Which seems to indicate that a change in carried ordinance was done.

Your logic is impeccable.



InfoMan -> RE: The great military genius (4/28/2017 2:33:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: InfoMan


Still waiting sweet cheeks



Keep waiting then.
The math is out there.
You are wrong.




InfoMan -> RE: The great military genius (4/28/2017 2:39:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Of course Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group Deployment Extended for Korea Presence Operations makes the whole thing as clear as mud, since the announced deployment by president Trump and the date that the battle group actually started heading for Korea does indicate that the ship and battle group were otherwise indisposed.

Which seems to indicate that a change in carried ordinance was done.


The Carl Vinson was participating as part of the Foal Eagle/Key Resolve combat exercises during the months of March/April. She moored in Busan South Korea mid March, then in Singapore early April, before swinging along the south side of Indonesia and up through the Philippines Sea. Taking part in exercises, drills, and combined operations the entire time.

It really simply seems that Trump spoke out of turn. The Navy probably told him that they would extend the deployment of the Group in area around Korea as it was currently participating in exercises in the area anyways. And after hearing this the President assumed this to mean that the ship would sail directly there, rather then continue on with what it was doing and stick around longer after it was done.



thompsonx -> RE: The great military genius (4/28/2017 2:42:30 PM)

ORIGINAL: InfoMan



Keep waiting then.
The math is out there.
You are wrong.


If that were true you would be able to post it. It ain't, you can't...that is quite evident.
When grown ups make a mistake they admit it and move on. Grow up.



InfoMan -> RE: The great military genius (4/28/2017 3:19:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


If that were true you would be able to post it. It ain't, you can't...that is quite evident.
When grown ups make a mistake they admit it and move on. Grow up.



Yes, it was a mistake in talking to some one as ignorant and pigheaded as you - because you manipulate an argument to the point that it no longer argues about the original point, so that when you eventually do gain some sort of positive footing, you some how believe it validates your entire debased series of ignorant statements you've made up until that point.

A carrier group travels between 10-20 knots depending on conditions, operations, and objectives. They can full steam at something closer to 20 knots if your objective is simply 'get on station' but it is not fuel efficient nor a comfortable ride for your crew and thus not really done. This is just fact based on how ships and the navy operates. Period.

But rather then admitting to that - you're going to ignorantly pull up a French Destroyer with out understanding the dynamics at play, Improperly use math equations which you think prove you right, And reference theoretical builds as fact because you think it will help you win.

Hey guess what - You where right - that 3 prop propeller was actually built in 1961...
I didn't know that. Not that i cared to know it in the first place, but what ever.

So what does a theoretical propeller that was designed for an outboard motor/speed boat that have to do with the operating procedures and limitations of one of the largest nuclear powered ships in the world that does not use such a propeller? And how does it prove... Anything?

you've spouted so much bullshit that I've stopped caring to go through it.
So, i am sorry.
I am sorry you're an ignorant troll that doesn't understand physics, mathematics, or science...


or the quote function.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875