GeneP59 wrote:
 

Bad news about those bumpers...

Great looking car! Drive it with enjoyment and RP on the car App. 

The only thing I hate about this next gen auto's are the full grill from top to bottom. There's no bumpers to stop you from wrecking your grill and a $1000 replacement job

 n4ku wrote:
 

Amazing vehicle from afar or from anywhere else for that matter...

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
It does pretty much everything but fly. I still want a Jetson's car.

 n4ku wrote:
 
That's a space-agey-lookin' motor vehicle right there. Ooh.

 islander wrote:
 

Maybe I'll plant a tomato there. A friend of ours left a carrot in the ground under his dryer vent one year. Next summer it was about 3 pounds.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Given the relative humidity of WY in the winter, I don't think you're going to need sand.  You'll probably be sublimating the frost from your lawn/driveway/neighbors as well. 

 Lazy8 wrote:
 

We used to have a little bucket attachment on the end of the hose that you put an inch or so of water in, to catch the lint, and we thought the warmth and moisture would be good. The bit of water dried out immediately but it never did trap any lint... I don't think it was moving enough air.

The new dryer vents out near the back steps. Remains to be seen whether it keeps the steps clear of ice or gives them a nice glaze all winter.

islander wrote:
 

It loses heat in the pipe on the way, then drops the temperature at the expansion at the end (not a huge delta P but it's in the right direction). And yes, the extra humidity was part of the goal.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I'm surprised it would separate the moisture as well. Do you have to cool anything to get it to condense?  I imagine you are more tolerant of a little extra water in the air than we are.

islander wrote:

We wanted to scavenge the dryer heat but the dust was a problem, so we scored one of these:

Works a treat. Condensation collects in the bucket along with the dust, warm air out the top.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Our duct run went to a bad spot, and it was about 20 ft long. We wound up with so much condensation in the duct it was problematic. Plus the old units were 2000 vintage apartment  over/under specials. They didn't hold much and used 30+ gallons of water per load.  The new ones take twice as much laundry and use less than way less than 10 gallons per load. The heat pump dryer is super efficient too, and doesn't release a lot of heat in the room like the condenser units do. 

 islander wrote:
 

Those look cool. We replaced our Bosch stackers with traditional Maytag but now the dryer is gas and next to an exterior wall. The old ones were electric and ducted up into the attic and out. The 2' run of ducting really improves performance... we actually have never dried anything on hot, 'cause the low setting is warmer than the old one ever got and the wind out in the driveway when the thing is going is strong. I still expect cats to lay in the warm spot out there in the winter.

 

New washer dryer. Super high efficiency and ductless. The dryer has a heat pump and dumps the water down the same drain as the washer (or collects in a box that you have to dump). Also super compact for the boat. I actually had to dismantle the old unit that was in there. There was one conceivable way to get it out without breaking it down, but it turned out ot be easier just to get out the wrenches. 

These are Asko. Swedish, so they match the engines!  Now we have to learn the hundreds of different program combinations. 

 islander wrote: 


I reckon a lot of the briny stuff is going to get ingested on take-off, despite the whacking great chines around the nose / bow. But that's the Soviets for you - not particularly elegant, built like a brick sh*t-house, and generally worked.

See also: Soyuz.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
yeah that made me laugh

i spent about twenty minutes this morning reading up on jet engines (i blame red dragon)

also i read where they (GE) gather sand from all over the planet and toss that in there too

Getting the dust into the engine is easy, DeBruin says—that's why this whole thing is a problem to begin with. The rig pumps roughly five gallons of sand out of what look like small hoses, into the air just in front of a running engine, which sucks them in.

Once the test engine's taken a trip to the beach, the Peebles crew disassembles the engine for what it calls a diagnostic teardown. They take photos, swab parts for chemical analysis, and pull out chunks for metallurgical analysis under a microscope. Thanks to computer simulations, the engineers have a good idea of what to look for going in, but real-life testing provides more believable data. Based on the results, the crew will tweak engine designs and change up the metal coatings they use, until they find the right fit.

Before allowing a new kind of engine into service, GE will run hundreds of thousands of test cycles on the development prototype. Hot and harsh testing is just one element of that an aging process that redlines the engine for 150 hours, to simulate five to seven years of wear and spot things that will become problems far in advance. Once that's done, says DeBruin, "we've abused that engine beyond anything it's going to see in flight."

  The best part of the work GE does in Peebles is that the failure rate of commercial aircraft engines has plummeted from 40 per 100,000 engine flight hours in the 1960s to just one today, according to Airbus. Put another way, engines used to fail once a year. Now, they fail once every 30 years.

Though the gun that fires chickens at hundreds of miles per hour is also a contender.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Band name: 5.5# Bird Ingestion

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
i think jet engines aren't made for submarines but they are engineered to take on hail/rain/snow

here's one ingesting a shite ton of water, about 4 tons or so a minute

skip to the one minute mark to see some testing

 islander wrote: 
I'm dying here!