Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

I've written aircraft Flight Certification Structural reports. You'd never get away with a 'suggest' there. You have to have concrete proof with calculations, which are always sent for independent stress checking. If the numbers don't add up, you're screwed.

I have no idea how you got to that position considering you've demonstrated that you can't even comprehend a simple graph or understand the Sun/Earth relationship when its explained you.

Anyway with all of that knowledge perhaps you can now give me your analysis of where the science (and the international team of scientists who took part in the research) are wrong? You have the data sources and the calc methods and the report itself is available
I'd take even an inkling of you demonstrating that you could comprehend any of it as success on your part.

No matter how much you protest that CC reports are good science, when you see them stuffed with guessing words, the alarm bells go off.

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

I've written aircraft Flight Certification Structural reports. You'd never get away with a 'suggest' there. You have to have concrete proof with calculations, which are always sent for independent stress checking. If the numbers don't add up, you're screwed.

I have no idea how you got to that position considering you've demonstrated that you can't even comprehend a simple graph or understand the Sun/Earth relationship when its explained you.

Anyway with all of that knowledge perhaps you can now give me your analysis of where the science (and the international team of scientists who took part in the research) are wrong? You have the data sources and the calc methods and the report itself is available
I'd take even an inkling of you demonstrating that you could comprehend any of it as success on your part.

No matter how much you protest that CC reports are good science, when you see them stuffed with guessing words, the alarm bells go off.

When I see somebody who can’t read a simple line graph questioning an international scientific report the alarm bells go off.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

PS. Better not fly in the A380 then Durbs, I did some analysis to make sure the wings don't fall off.

Great, then you'll be able to answer this question:

Let's say an A380 took its first flight on 1st January 2015.

Without using any "guessing words" - according to your own definition - what's the exact date the left outboard aileron will need to be replaced?

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

PS. Better not fly in the A380 then Durbs, I did some analysis to make sure the wings don't fall off.

Here's proof they won't. Nice when you get your calculations proved by a practical test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--LTYRTKV_A

Edited by robinessex on Wednesday 1st July 17:08

The A380 wings are famous for cracking. Loads of them had to be fixed and wing sections changed.

It turned out the stressman hadn’t considered the stresses caused during the manufacturing process which caused extra loading in flight.

So you’re saying you were a stressman working on the loading calculations of the A380 wings?

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 1st July 18:19

[robinessex]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

PS. Better not fly in the A380 then Durbs, I did some analysis to make sure the wings don't fall off.

Great, then you'll be able to answer this question:

Let's say an A380 took its first flight on 1st January 2015.

Without using any "guessing words" - according to your own definition - what's the exact date the left outboard aileron will need to be replaced?

You are quite stupid Durbs. But to answer your question, all aircraft have a number of flight hours flight, then it's scrapped, all parts on an aircraft have a designated life as well. (If my memory serves me correctly, the Panavia Tornado had about 6,000, military aircraft have G meters on them, and this data is monitored to determine the life of the aircraft). Even so, aircraft undergo routine crack detection, which is why, after a certain number of hours in flight, they are virtually stripped and rebuilt. Aircraft also have built on load detection devices, if by chance they're overloaded (very heavy landing, very severe turbulence), then some items would be changed. I guess you understand the word fatigue as it's applied to structures then?

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

robinessex said:

PS. Better not fly in the A380 then Durbs, I did some analysis to make sure the wings don't fall off.

Great, then you'll be able to answer this question:

Let's say an A380 took its first flight on 1st January 2015.

Without using any "guessing words" - according to your own definition - what's the exact date the left outboard aileron will need to be replaced?

You are quite stupid Durbs. But to answer your question, all aircraft have a number of flight hours flight, then it's scrapped, all parts on an aircraft have a designated life as well. (If my memory serves me correctly, the Panavia Tornado had about 6,000, military aircraft have G meters on them, and this data is monitored to determine the life of the aircraft). Even so, aircraft undergo routine crack detection, which is why, after a certain number of hours in flight, they are virtually stripped and rebuilt. Aircraft also have built on load detection devices, if by chance they're overloaded (very heavy landing, very severe turbulence), then some items would be changed. I guess you understand the word fatigue as it's applied to structures then?

You are completely missing his point.

[robinessex]

Because it's a stupid point. The part, in fact, any part, will have a designated life and will be changed/repaired when it reaches it.

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

PS. Better not fly in the A380 then Durbs, I did some analysis to make sure the wings don't fall off.

Here's proof they won't. Nice when you get your calculations proved by a practical test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--LTYRTKV_A

Edited by robinessex on Wednesday 1st July 17:08

The A380 wings are famous for cracking. Loads of them had to be fixed and wing sections changed.

It turned out the stressman hadn’t considered the stresses caused during the manufacturing process which caused extra loading in flight.

So you’re saying you were a stressman working on the loading calculations of the A380 wings?

Edited by El stovey on Wednesday 1st July 18:19

I worked on the wing attachment to the fuselage, so nothing to do with me. Loads induced into a structure during manufacture are an industry problem. The production engineers who create the manufacturing methods are instructed to keep an eye out for this, but, with something as complicated as an aircraft, it sometimes gets missed. Note though, that the crack detecting checks for the wings did find the problem in time, and a solution was instigated. I'm pretty dam certain in saying that there isn't an aircraft in flight that hasn't got a few cracks somewhere. I trust Mr. Stovey, you do your pre-flight, aircraft walk-around, check with due diligence?

[robinessex]

I think we've wandered enough off the topic, if you want to discuss more, create a new forum

[durbster]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

Great, then you'll be able to answer this question:

Let's say an A380 took its first flight on 1st January 2015.

Without using any "guessing words" - according to your own definition - what's the exact date the left outboard aileron will need to be replaced?

You are quite stupid Durbs.

robinessex said:

I note you are still posting derogatory remarks Durbs, again, because you've nothing to add.

robinessex said:

But to answer your question, all aircraft have a number of flight hours flight, then it's scrapped, all parts on an aircraft have a designated life as well.

Nope, doesn't answer my question at all. What facts are those lifespans based on?

robinessex said:

Even so, aircraft undergo routine crack detection, which is why, after a certain number of hours in flight, they are virtually stripped and rebuilt.

And how do they arrive at that number?

robinessex said:

Aircraft also have built on load detection devices, if by chance they're overloaded (very heavy landing, very severe turbulence), then some items would be changed.

"If by chance" doesn't sounds like the language of hard facts. In fact, I don't see a single hard fact about the life of an aircraft part in there.

If anything, it sounds like what you're saying is you can't give a definitive answer to my question because there are lots of variables, and the answer is largely dependent on what happens in the future.

[robinessex]

Last reply on the subject here Durbs.

The answer you want. Fatigue Life

Go look at this:-

Fatigue and durability analysis software to determine structure life and durability. I won't divulge Airbus (and others) methods, but this should give you the answer.

https://www.ncode.com/

A reasonable showing of fatigue analysis using the above

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox_rJpqZFHA

Edited by robinessex on Thursday 2nd July 09:05

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Last reply on the subject here Durbs.

The answer you want. Fatigue Life

Go look at this:-

Fatigue and durability analysis software to determine structure life and durability. I won't divulge Airbus (and others) methods, but this should give you the answer.

https://www.ncode.com/

A reasonable showing of fatigue analysis using the above

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox_rJpqZFHA

Edited by robinessex on Thursday 2nd July 09:05

Wow! You spend most of your time on these fora crying foul and saying the statistics are meaningless, modelling is just guess work and that the only right answer is one that says when something WILL happen.

Are you really too hard of thinking to understand that all of the work you do is based on statistical modelling developed to understand when a structure may fail and that the specific time/stress expiry times that the aircraft industry works with are based on these models plus an element for safety balanced against replacement costs (which in themselves are also based on statistical models)?

[Gadgetmac]

Have you got any actual science for this thread Rob? Any scientific argument to counter the research and analysis performed by the scientists and published in the Journal Nature?

Every story reported on this thread you dive on with the same old ridiculous arguments to decry it playing word games instead of posting any substance.

You are polluting this thread with this drivel.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

The answer you want. Fatigue Life

Go look at this:-

Fatigue and durability analysis software to determine structure life and durability. I won't divulge Airbus (and others) methods, but this should give you the answer.

https://www.ncode.com/

A reasonable showing of fatigue analysis using the above

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox_rJpqZFHA

Modelling, data analysis, statistics. All things you cite as reasons not to accept the science behind climate change.

Hey look, ncode even use averages - a calculation you repeatedly claim is meaningless.
https://www.ncode.com/search?search=average

robinessex said:

Last reply on the subject here Durbs.

That's OK. No need for further comment as you've managed to ruin all your arguments in one go.

[kerplunk]

Meh why bother looking for tiny cracks in wings - small things can't have significant effects.

Common sense.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Meh why bother looking for tiny cracks in wings - small things can't have significant effects.

Common sense.

There are probably many tiny cracks in most wings.

If you set up an Intergovernmental Panel on Wing Cracks, I bet they would come up with some frightening reports.

I bet the wing cracking problem is worse than we actually thought.

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Meh why bother looking for tiny cracks in wings - small things can't have significant effects.

Common sense.

There are probably many tiny cracks in most wings.

If you set up an Intergovernmental Panel on Wing Cracks, I bet they would come up with some frightening reports.

I bet the wing cracking problem is worse than we actually thought.

We do have organisations in place to mitigate these risks, so your joke here doesn't really make sense.

[PRTVR]

Gadgetmac said:

I offer science from scientists in the field, your response, as always, is non-scientific bluster from the comfort of your armchair.

Science driven by politics and threats , you must be so proud.....

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/forbes-censors...

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

I offer science from scientists in the field, your response, as always, is non-scientific bluster from the comfort of your armchair.

Science driven by politics and threats , you must be so proud.....

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/forbes-censors...

That article is about environmental activism and somebody with a book to promote (remember: follow the money).

What does it have to do with climate science?

Honestly, don't you ever sit and wonder why you're forced to feed on scraps like this in order to hang on to an ideology?

[Gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

I offer science from scientists in the field, your response, as always, is non-scientific bluster from the comfort of your armchair.

Science driven by politics and threats , you must be so proud.....

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/forbes-censors...

Once again, no science just politics. I appreciate it's damn nigh impossible for you to produce any bona fide current scientific evidence for this thread so I suppose the tactic has to be swamp it with opinion and accusation instead.

I'll show you again in the coming days the sort of thing you should be posting in here.


ETA You know he's not a scientist but an ex environmental activist right? He's also a lobbyist for nuclear power. Just saying. He's gonna sell a lot of books to people like you

https://independentaustralia.net/business/business...

Edited by Gadgetmac on Friday 3rd July 08:30