Some of you may recall numerous comments on statistics and physics here by commenter “bbbeard.” Sadly, I just received notification that he died over the weekend:
Where: Memphis Botanical Gardens (in the Japanese Garden)
750 Cherry Road
Memphis, TN 38117
Phone: 901.636.4106
Date: Saturday, April 21, 2012
Time: Gathering at 10:00am with Service to begin at 10:30am. Lunch to follow, ending at 1:30pm
Donations can be made to either of the following:
Keystone School
119 E. Craig Place
San Antonio, TX 78212
Phone: 210.735.4022
He was a former colleague of mine at the ARES Corporation (though I never worked with him). The comments section here (as well, of course, as his friends and family) will miss him.
Through calculations, Busemann found that a biplane design could essentially do away with shock waves. Each wing of the design, when seen from the side, is shaped like a flattened triangle, with the top and bottom wings pointing toward each other. The configuration, according to his calculations, cancels out shock waves produced by each wing alone.
However, the design lacks lift: The two wings create a very narrow channel through which only a limited amount of air can flow. When transitioning to supersonic speeds, the channel, Wang says, could essentially “choke,” creating incredible drag. While the design could work beautifully at supersonic speeds, it can’t overcome the drag to reach those speeds.
If the design “lacks lift” (which it does — that’s the problem with a Busemann biplane) how does it “work beautifully at supersonic speeds”? What holds the airplane up?
It is not obvious to me that exploring and producing oil in Virunga National Park will have an adverse affect on the wildlife. If the government is responsible, the tax revenues could help pay for increased protection and security.
What if they aren’t really “fossil” fuels? I’m skeptical on this, but maintain an open mind. If Gold is right, it’s a huge game changer, not just technologically, but politically. Of course, it will just send the carbon loons further around the bend.
So, apparently, I’m not skeptical about the need to wreck our economy to save the planet because many of the scientists promoting it have been shown to be frauds and hacks. No, it’s because I’m a threatened, “conservative white male.”
What would I do without professors of sociology to explain such things to me? I particularly love the “98% of scientists” line. Because, you know, science is all about majority opinion (and no, even if it was, I don’t buy the number).