Andy

Sounds more like a premonition to me

As I said to Gemma a while back, don't mistake the forum rules as being anything other than an excuse to fall back on whenever we need to get rid of people who we don't like

I'm gonna try and post here a bit more often actually, I've been meaning to for ages but I keep forgetting. Obviously the sheer STRESS of being an elitist forum admin is frying my memory.

Hmm... I think most of us can interpret when things are said in jest, and when they aren't said in jest. But that's also the reason that we only really act nowadays if a post is reported first. As for your ban... It has nothing to do with the user you directed your comments at or even the severity of the abuse, and you know that. 171484[/snapback] Why was I then? I honestly don't know. 171488[/snapback] I'll PM you over there, I want to ask about something else you said too.

Hmm... I think most of us can interpret when things are said in jest, and when they aren't said in jest. But that's also the reason that we only really act nowadays if a post is reported first. As for your ban... It has nothing to do with the user you directed your comments at or even the severity of the abuse, and you know that.

That's certainly a contributive factor, but the feedback about the forum has been lingering since way before christmas. Obviously, certain times of the year are going to bring about different quality of posts, but I think the problem with our nufc section has been consistently there since the two forums split this time last year, if not earlier.

My posting style hasn't changed since I registered. I post what I'm thinking, and I don't really give a flying fuck how it comes across to people who I will probably never, ever speak to in reality. If you think my posting style is elitist - fine. That's perfectly ok. But don't make the mistake of thinking that I would help out in changing forum rules or forum posting systems to gain a power-rush or something, because you couldn't be further from the truth. The same goes for the other n-o admins too. We're not doing what we're doing because we think we're superior, we're not doing it because we want to sit and judge every thread that's started and decide how worthy it is. We're doing it because the general feedback we get is that the football discussion on forum is a pile of wank and it needs work put into it, and that's all it comes down to.

That would be the Wullie who called me a sick moron, and the Andy who banned me and left the "Don't come back" 171009[/snapback] Haha, I remember that. I remember asking myself "Now... How can I ban him AND annoy him in the same post?". Did I come up with a good answer? DotBum: I don't think it's a case of "us against them", at least not from myself. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I'm sure they're all the same. Occasionaly I might make the odd deliberately patronising post to certain people who piss me off, but I think generally I like 90% of the people over there who I've had any kind discussion with, no matter how heated. I think most of the mods over there want to be pre-active in how they approach running the forum, and it's sometimes confused with being "power-hungry". They want to try new things whenever possible, and they're open to new ideas and suggestions. When we make changes like this, the aim isn't to alienate people we don't like (or people we DO like as well, if you want), the aim is to try to make the place better. Sometimes that requires change. In some instance people won't take the change well, but I don't think that means we should stop trying, it just means we have to look at what we're doing wrong and improve on it in future. This new posting system was never intended as a "this will let us flex our e-muscles" kind of escapade, it was intended to try something different in the hope that people would grow to see the benefits of it. If it still doesn't work after the trial period is up, it'll be scrapped immediately.

Already been said. You am lose or whatever. 133500[/snapback] Wrong. I'm a joint winner.

The plane was actually a harrier jump-jet. I am win.

I can see what you are saying. The engines suck the air over the wings. However this would create "hotspots" and not a uniform lift as the majority of the wing would not have any lift. Also its very dependent on the location of the engines. The ideal location being exactly in the middle of the wing, which is never the case as they are almost always located beneath them. This means the only air flow is under the wing and none above. Now in order to determine the pressure underneath depends on the speed of the air. Now you have to look into the compressable flow equations. Now assuming mach 0.999 airspeed through the engine this give a pressure of about 0.55atm below the wing compared to 1atm above. And hence no lift and the plane is infact forced to the ground 133333[/snapback] Actually, it's a trick question, there is no possible "yes" or "no" answer, because the question is illogical. I just thought I'd play devil's advocate Basically, for the plane to move forward the wheels must be moving faster than the conveyor, yeah? But for the plane to move from it's station-holding position on the conveyor, as the thrust is applied to the engine, the wheels must turn quicker for it to develop forward motion. And according to the initial question, the conveyor will instantly match the speed of the wheels. And that's the sticking point. As soon as the conveyor belt increases speed to match the plane's wheel speed, the plane's wheel speed will increase. It is impossible for the conveyor belt to ever be the same speed as the wheels of the plane once more-than-station-keeping thrust has been applied, and the wheels would instantaneously reach inifinite rotational velocity. Thus, it's a bogus question. The circumstances described simply can't happen. A better way to phrase the question, however, would be to replace "wheel speed" with "plane speed", as that is actually realistic... But that's for another day. 133438[/snapback] Surely the point in a hypothetical question is that we take it as read that the initial information is complete and can be taken as fact though. I didn't realise we were allowed to question the initial premise based on the fact that it couldn't happen in reality. 133442[/snapback] Well, that was the way the question was phrased on various other forums where it caused uproar. Thought I'd try it on here too

I can see what you are saying. The engines suck the air over the wings. However this would create "hotspots" and not a uniform lift as the majority of the wing would not have any lift. Also its very dependent on the location of the engines. The ideal location being exactly in the middle of the wing, which is never the case as they are almost always located beneath them. This means the only air flow is under the wing and none above. Now in order to determine the pressure underneath depends on the speed of the air. Now you have to look into the compressable flow equations. Now assuming mach 0.999 airspeed through the engine this give a pressure of about 0.55atm below the wing compared to 1atm above. And hence no lift and the plane is infact forced to the ground 133333[/snapback] Actually, it's a trick question, there is no possible "yes" or "no" answer, because the question is illogical. I just thought I'd play devil's advocate Basically, for the plane to move forward the wheels must be moving faster than the conveyor, yeah? But for the plane to move from it's station-holding position on the conveyor, as the thrust is applied to the engine, the wheels must turn quicker for it to develop forward motion. And according to the initial question, the conveyor will instantly match the speed of the wheels. And that's the sticking point. As soon as the conveyor belt increases speed to match the plane's wheel speed, the plane's wheel speed will increase. It is impossible for the conveyor belt to ever be the same speed as the wheels of the plane once more-than-station-keeping thrust has been applied, and the wheels would instantaneously reach inifinite rotational velocity. Thus, it's a bogus question. The circumstances described simply can't happen. A better way to phrase the question, however, would be to replace "wheel speed" with "plane speed", as that is actually realistic... But that's for another day.

This is a basic way of describing it: step one: plane's engines throttle up, increasing the force against the AIR behind the engines. no force is applied to the wheels step two: increased force against the air pushes plane forwards step three: conveyor belt starts turning the opposite way to the directon of the plane, meaning the wheels spin twice as fast as the plane is moving through the air step four: the plane continues to accelerate, as does the conveyor belt, until the plane's AIRSPEED reaches, say, 160kts. At this point the wheels are spinning at the equivalent of 320kts step five: plane takes off, because an airspeed of 160kts is more than enough to produce required lift on the wings step six: wheel bearings probably melt, plane has trouble landing

believe it or not but this very question resulted in a 780 odd reply thread on a dvd forum a bloody dvd forum caused a right ruckus. 133168[/snapback] Am I dim to think it obviously wouldn't? (Because no wind is moving over the wings which is what makes a plane fly I thought) How can you get that big an argument about it? 133252[/snapback] So if there's no wind on a standard airport runway, a plane can't take off? 133279[/snapback] The effect of "wind" is created by the plane's movement. In the example you give, it would be standing still, Shirley? 133281[/snapback] Yeah, but I think you're assuming that the power of the plane's engines is transfered through the wheels, which it isn't. The conveyer belt is completely irrelevant to the plane's ability to take off.

believe it or not but this very question resulted in a 780 odd reply thread on a dvd forum a bloody dvd forum caused a right ruckus. 133168[/snapback] Am I dim to think it obviously wouldn't? (Because no wind is moving over the wings which is what makes a plane fly I thought) How can you get that big an argument about it? 133252[/snapback] So if there's no wind on a standard airport runway, a plane can't take off?

A plane is attempting to take off on a conveyer belt/travelator arrangement. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels , moving in the opposite direction. There is no wind. Can the plane take off?

Based on what?

Well done for being a year older. Keep up the good work.

Lost (season 2) - Still the strongest show on TV. Prison break - One of the most suspenseful shows I've seen in a while. Alias - Still going strong in it's final season. Top Gear - Best british thing ever. Scrubs - Funny, whilst also quite engaging. Arrested Development - WHY ARE THEY CANCELLING THIS SHOW FFS?

What about the person who POSTED the info? That should be a permanent IP ban. Full stop. 108960[/snapback] As much as I'd love to ban chris, he owns the site, so it's kinda tricky

I don't advocate what peasepud did, but can I just say that - if the bit about him receiving threatening phone calls is true - any N-O users found to have been involved will be banned from the forum, and reported to the relevant authorities immediately. There's a line, and this is well and truly crossing it.

dont worry mate, I am, however unlike certain others Im going to take my time and document it tomorrow my version of events will be there for all to see. *oh and I thought you werent coming on here anymore? 108915[/snapback] surprised you havnt been banned mate they'll ban for for owt over there http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/...ic,16560.0.html 108917[/snapback] Overuse of smileys. 8 day ban.

I thought you had a sense of humour Mags? He was banned for consistently being a moron. 106541[/snapback] Maybe considering the actions of some it's just a behavior I'm used to seeing and have come to accept as normal? 106597[/snapback] HTT doesn't post on here that often, does he?

Dangerous precedent to set over there. 106551[/snapback] Which one? The banning of morons, or the attempted humour?

I thought you had a sense of humour Mags? He was banned for consistently being a moron.