Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox: Commercial Pilots 'attacked' with laser
Fox News | Greta Van Susteren

Posted on 09/28/2004 8:12:49 PM PDT by ableChair

Greta Van Susteren reported that a Delta pilot enroute to Salt Lake City was lazed in the cockpit this last Wednesday. Only country I know that has that hardware (for lazing bomber pilots) was the Soviet Union. Pilot reportedly required medical treatment and this was not a minor injury (weak laser) wound. More will come out to tomorrow as this story hits the print press.


TOPICS: Breaking News; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: airlinesecurity; dal; kapitanman; laser
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 601-610 next last
To: Boot Hill
Your source (#361) is incorrect

LOL, Cambridge is incorrect? This is too F'kn funny.
381 posted on 09/29/2004 2:23:01 AM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP

I love cryptic posts. What are you trying to say? I'll have to guess because cryptic posters never respond. Perhaps you're straw-manning me into saying that lasers couldn't blind people? Never said that and it has nothing to do with the current debate. Read my posts.


382 posted on 09/29/2004 2:24:49 AM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: ableChair

"Only 49 percent of the available solar radiation reaches the surface of our planet [all types - my comment], 5 percent through direct radiation, 22 percent through clouds and 22 percent by downwards scattering in the atmosphere".

That doesn't say that 95 percent is absorbed. It says that 49 percent gets through. Yes, of course, if you consider clouds, out laser-terrorist is going to be out of luck on a foggy day.


383 posted on 09/29/2004 2:34:09 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: ableChair
If that were the case solar cells would be completely useless.

The sun radiates roughly 1380 watts per square meter above the atmosphere which is mostly visible light. Current commercial solar cells can produce 130 watts of electricity per square meter (direct sunshine, no clouds) on the ground which is 9.4% of the total energy the sun is radiating above the atmosphere. Current solar cells are only about 13% efficient... There is a huge discrepancy between this fact and your claims.

If the solar cell were 100% efficient and only 5% of the suns energy hit the ground you would get about 69 watts per square meter...

With a 13% efficient solar cell you'd get about 9 watts of electricity for every square meter of cells.

On top of that, solar cells don't convert long wave heat energy into electricity. Which is what would be predominant if the atmosphere absorbed 95% of the sun's radiation and then the atmosphere re-radiated that absorbed energy as heat.

Are you purposely debating this knowing otherwise just to get a response???

If so, I've unhappily wasted a large part of my day responding to you...

384 posted on 09/29/2004 2:35:30 AM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill

No clouds, and it's dark, clouds and it light... That makes sense... That's why it is so dark and cold in the desert when there are no clouds... Or ever how that works...


385 posted on 09/29/2004 2:39:00 AM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

OMG!, now you're arguing the ENGLISH! It plainly says that only 5% reaches the surface. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.


386 posted on 09/29/2004 2:44:23 AM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: ableChair
8 “So, you're claim is that one of the most respected authorities on the subject is wrong because...you say so. Not very convincing.”

University of Delaware says atmospheric absorption is 16%, not 95%...


 

University of Oregon says atmospheric absorption is 19%, not 95%...


 

How many more do you need?

--Boot Hill

387 posted on 09/29/2004 2:44:24 AM PDT by Boot Hill (Candy-gram for Osama bin Mongo, candy-gram for Osama bin Mongo!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: ableChair

The cockpit probably just flew through the reflection off Kerry's new bright orange bottled tan.


388 posted on 09/29/2004 2:45:20 AM PDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (Kerry/Edwards--When you're full of it you need two johns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB
If that were the case solar cells would be completely useless

I can't stop laughing now. You guys gotta stop, please...

Just because a PORTION of radiative sunlight is blocked by the atmosphere doesn't mean that solar panels won't work. Can't admit you're wrong...
389 posted on 09/29/2004 2:46:02 AM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill

You're kidding, right? Can you read? It's not talking about radiative sunlight. You're still confusing radiative and convective energy. But, hey, I guess Cambridge can be wrong!


390 posted on 09/29/2004 2:47:36 AM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington

I wonder how much energy Kerry's face would absorb with all that fake tanner going on? It's late. LMAO.


391 posted on 09/29/2004 2:48:56 AM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: ableChair

Soviets did this some years ago during the Cold war, too.


392 posted on 09/29/2004 2:49:09 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill

Dude, read the fine print. You're confusing yourself. Now I see why so many people have this confused. THINK about it. Why do solar panels work so much better in orbit? Why do spacesuits get up to 200 or 300 degrees? If that much RADIATIVE sunlight reached the surface you would fry like an egg!!! Gotta go to bed but you guys have given me a lot of comedy material here tonight.


393 posted on 09/29/2004 2:50:33 AM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: ableChair
"Only 49 percent of the available solar radiation reaches the surface of our planet [all types - my comment], 5 percent through direct radiation, 22 percent through clouds and 22 percent by downwards scattering in the atmosphere".

In other words, 95% is initially absorbed and some of that reaches the Earth through convection.

Just on a simple math level, your contention doesn't add up.

The Cambridge Atlas says of all available solar radiation, 49% reaches the surface of the planet. Therefore, 51% never reaches the surface of the planet, and best I can tell, is never accounted for in THIS balance.

The balance doesn't account for 51% of the energy. How do you know that the 51% "is initially absorbed"?

FWIW, a clinical view of "convection" has it transferring energy "up" as a column of warm fluid rises through cooler, more dense fluid. You may instead be thinking of diffuse (vs. direct) radiation, and conduction.

394 posted on 09/29/2004 2:51:43 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill

We're talking about RADIATIVE sunlight reaching the surface. Just because x% is absorbed at the surface, that doesn't mean it's all radiative. Some of it is by convection, just like the Cambridge Atlas says.


395 posted on 09/29/2004 2:52:03 AM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

You're kidding right? You guys will argue anything to be right! Did you read the part about "available" radiation? Obviously the remaining percent was not ignored. Perhaps that's the reflected light, I don't know, but I doubt Cambridge made THAT big of an error.


396 posted on 09/29/2004 2:54:11 AM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: ableChair
Your going to have to do better than I have a book that "says so".

The Web is a big place. Find an online reference to support your position.

If you bother to go over the link I provided it goes into detail about the subject.

How do you explain being able to see the stars at night with 95% of their light absorbed, diffracted or otherwise??? They'd simply be a dim blur at best...

The stars are in fact only a little brighter in space than on earth on a clear night. The biggest improvement in space is the elimination of scintillation which allows much sharper images.

All of the reflection/absorption numbers in those links are based on cloud cover, water vapor and other factor averages over the whole earth.

On a clear day, it's a clear day. Then over 70% of the suns light makes it to the ground. That's how a 13% efficient solar cell produces 130 watts per square meter on a sunny day... Otherwise it wouldn't be possible...
397 posted on 09/29/2004 2:55:44 AM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Why is it so hard for some people to accept readily verifiable facts? Go to a library and read the Atlas. It's all there. Just be sure you read it correctly and you look at RADIATIVE sunlight reaching the surface as that's what's relevant for the laser discussion.


398 posted on 09/29/2004 2:55:47 AM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: ableChair
"It's not talking about radiative sunlight."

It IS talking about the atmospheric absorption of the sun's radiation and that's the relevant physical property under discussion. If you're talking about something else, then this would sure be the time for you to make that explicitly clear!

--Boot Hill

399 posted on 09/29/2004 2:56:58 AM PDT by Boot Hill (Candy-gram for Osama bin Mongo, candy-gram for Osama bin Mongo!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: DB
How do you explain being able to see the stars at night with 95% of their light absorbed, diffracted or otherwise??? They'd simply be a dim blur at best...

Dude, seriously, this is getting really stupid. From what frame of reference do you make that statement? How do you know how bright stars would be WITHOUT an atmosphere? You don't! Why do you think telescopes work so much better in orbit? You said you would concede the point but yet you refuse. That just tells me that you can't accept being wrong. As for references, I've provided you a reference and quoted it. The rest is up to you. I can't hold your hand.
400 posted on 09/29/2004 2:58:27 AM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 601-610 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson