HOME | DD

latentcrimina In reply to metalart88 [2021-06-13 21:14:47 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

unubiquitous In reply to kailia [2014-01-09 22:50:08 +0000 UTC]

Where did you get that number from? The 650 inch bust?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kailia In reply to unubiquitous [2014-01-10 07:53:55 +0000 UTC]

Yup.  Simply  fed that in as a circumference and divided by Pi.  I assume that Z took a similar route when assuming the size.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

unubiquitous In reply to kailia [2014-01-10 12:16:13 +0000 UTC]

Sorry, that isn't what I meant. What I meant was, where did the 650 inch number come from?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kailia In reply to unubiquitous [2014-01-10 15:33:16 +0000 UTC]

Bottom of the pic. She has a 32" underbust and a 650" cup.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

unubiquitous In reply to kailia [2014-01-10 22:36:53 +0000 UTC]

Oh. Not really written in a way that makes me think of that. I guess just about any way to mark a bra size that big wouldn't look right.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

khimru In reply to unubiquitous [2014-01-11 14:27:31 +0000 UTC]

And if we are talking about [pseudo-]science...

Another interesting observation: when Alexis and Than talked it was easy to see that Alexis is smaller of the two, but now that we have numbers we know Than's breasts are five times heavier than Alexis'. That's... a lot.

Alexis had six antigravity pods on her bra so how many has Than? Thirty? The whole construct will be quite unstable (as N1 amply demonstrated)... perhaps that what Than meant when she said that she could not handle much more quite yet ?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

zdemian In reply to khimru [2014-01-11 16:47:06 +0000 UTC]

Stability is strong function of geometry.  Rockets in general are very unstable since the thrust is typically applied far from the center of mass or center of lift.  So for our [pseudo-]science discussion, the current arrangement of a pair of huge breasts, the lift is applied in some net arrangement that acts directly through the center of mass and in opposite direction of the weight.  The geometry would suggest that there is little in terms of rolling moments, and the entire system would be rather stable, especially staticly.  The bigger concern would be the total amount of lift needed-- and the power required to supply it. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

zdemian In reply to zdemian [2014-01-11 23:48:51 +0000 UTC]

Rocket flight does not follow a straight path, so there's a difference in the direction of thrust and the direction of weight which creates a natural moment.  As you said, however, more thrust can enhance stability-- it's the difference between dynamic stability and static stability.  A bicycle works fine as long as you're moving, but needs a kickstand if you're not.  In that case, I think you're mixing issues as well.

The situation for the bra is closer to a static stability problem then dynamic.  For a rocket it'd be similar to the state just before launch; thrust is balanced by weight.  In such a case, a roughly sphere or even a cylinder on it's side has better stability than a cylinder standing on end due to the differences in moment of inertia about each axis.  The main debate is really lots of "thrusters" versus a smaller number.  The example of the N1 as supplied by the wikipedia entry is more a case of a poor budget and design rather than any fundamental problem with a large number of thrusters.  One consideration, of course, is size constraints and complexity of plumbing needed to supply fuel and other resources to each thruster.  The other is fault tolerance-- how to account for a thruster that does not operate correctly.  More thrusters provides more flexibility for accounting for failures.  A single failure in a set of six makes a much larger difference than a single failure in thirty. 

Ultimately it's a balance between a, perhaps, increased likelihood of failures versus a better ability to compensate for failures that do occur.  There's no way you can say "more thrusters is bad" because of a rocket program that was cancelled nearly 40 years ago.  Control systems have improved considerably since that time.

As for power-- you're right, this is the main issue that makes it pseudo-science.  As it goes, if you use enough power, you can make anything fly.  The problem then is supplying absurd amounts of power; in the present case, we can only assume, as you say, that we get much better efficiency from futuristic batteries other other equipment that we can provide a lot of lift without flash frying everyone in the vicinity. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

khimru In reply to zdemian [2014-01-12 02:07:26 +0000 UTC]

The main debate is really lots of "thrusters" versus a smaller number.

There are no debate: you want as few thrusters as possible. If you'll take a look on evolution of aviation and rocket engineering you'll see that designs with huge number of engines (things like N1 with it's 30 engines or Delta III  with it's nine boosters, B-52 with it's eight engines or Mriya with it's six engines) are born out of necessity.

Only when larger engines are not available large number of smaller ones are used: Delta III was quickly replaced with Delta IV and other heavy rockets (like Titan IV or Energia ) usually use two-four engines, not ten or twenty. A380 and Tu-160 are both largeris larger than B-52 yet they use only four engines.

The example of the N1 as supplied by the wikipedia entry is more a case of a poor budget and design rather than any fundamental problem with a large number of thrusters.

I think you are missing some pieces of the large picture. You see, these same thrusters which were used by ill-fated N1 rocket were actually used by US Antares rocket which was flown just last year. Note: not "engines built using the same blue-prints", but the very same engines stock-piled back then and recently slightly modified by AeroJet . And AeroJet palns to build [somewhat upgraded] versions of these thrusters for the future launches! What does that says about quality of thrusters themselves?

Yes, N1 was underfunded and yes, it's creators were too optimistic, but they were able to produce an engine which is still used today (which basically means that it's still "state of the art" even today). All the failures were caused by attempt to balance so many engines: they all had slightly different thrust, they affected each other and so on.

I'm not saying that attempt to use thirty antigravity pads on a bra will lead to similarly spectacular failure, but, well, it's certainly not something you want to do if you have an alternative: one will face problems similar to what N1 faced (even if on smaller scale) and while they certainly are solvable they are not simple.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

khimru In reply to zdemian [2014-01-11 17:59:17 +0000 UTC]

I think you are mixing issues. Of course thrust is typically applied far from the center of mass or center of lift - but this is true for Atlas bras as well (well, it's true for Alexis bra, we've only see arrangement of pods on the Than's one). In fact it's farther from center of mass then it's in the typical rocket!

And of course with rockets lift is applies in some net arrangement that acts directly through the center of mass and in opposite direction of the weight, too: that's the only way to send rocket straight up and not sideways!

Yes, there are some differences of scale (rockets are much heavier and taller, even the very first rocket was about five times heavier than Than's breasts and about ten times taller), but math involved is still suprisingly similar. 

In the end the whole thing is related to the [unknown] properties of antigravity pads: N1 fared much worse than Saturn V not because it had more thrust (excess thrust makes stabilisation easier, not harder!... and this is where rocket fare much better then a bra... by design), but because it had 30 engines working in parallel! If Than's bra needs similar amount of pads then it'll experience similar issues. Failures will be much safer, obviously (when rocket filled with basically tons of explosives falls down you should expect bigger reaction then when breasts even if they are equally massive), but they should occur from time to time—especially if this is custom-made one-off model with custom hardware and software. If Atlas has 10 time more powerful model for some reason available on hand then this will not be a big issue.

As for the power required to supply it: this is where it becomes pseudo-science. We can safely assume that these things are somehow able to work with much smaller power input than rocket engines of similar thrust, otherwise these bras and chairs with anti-gravity pods (which were shown in this comic few times) make no sense. Not only all that power will incur heavy electric bill, the heat produced by use of such a huge amount of power will quickly burn everything around these chairs and ladies to a crisp! This we probably can assume large, but not excessively large power drain.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

khimru In reply to khimru [2014-01-11 18:16:52 +0000 UTC]

Mixed center of mass and center of lift in the first sentence, sorry. Center of mass of a typical rocket is, of course, very far from engines because rocket is so tall. Center of lift, on the other hand, is much closer for the very same reason.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

unubiquitous In reply to khimru [2014-01-11 14:43:59 +0000 UTC]

Closer to six times ((650/360)^3=5.89), but the point remains of course

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

R03Master In reply to turtleman15 [2014-01-10 03:53:40 +0000 UTC]

After reading this comment, I had to look at the picture again to see what everyone was talking about... I didn't even notice the trees at all!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

turtleman15 In reply to R03Master [2014-01-10 17:45:06 +0000 UTC]

optical illusions, they get you all the time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0