Sign up on the Revelation Software website to have access to the most current content, and to be able to ask questions and get answers from the Revelation community

At 07 AUG 2001 12:17:44PM Ashley Chapman - Billabong Sevices wrote:

I have a client who has 150 OpenInsight users connecting to a NT4 server, with the NT service installed. The intention is to gradually increase the user count to 500. Sofar, I have been unable to find any reference sites for a system of this magnatude. Are there any similar sites, which would be prepared to exchange experiences to our mutual benefit? In full confidence of course.

Ashley Chapman

[email protected]


At 07 AUG 2001 05:38PM [url=http://www.sprezzatura.com" onMouseOver=window.status=Click here to visit our web site?';return(true)]The Sprezzatura Group[/url] wrote:

We believe you know the UK's largest installation quite well and on the recent RevSoft roadshow noone suggested that they had a larger installation. Theoretically the only affect of adding more users is to slightly slow logon time.

The Sprezzatura Group

World Leaders in all things RevSoft


At 08 AUG 2001 04:23AM Ashley Chapman wrote:

Hmm… Theoretically, according to the laws of aerodynamics, the bumble bee is incapable of flight. Has anybody got any real experience?


At 08 AUG 2001 09:22AM [email protected] wrote:

Actually, the rumour that bumblebees cannot fly is greatly exaggerated. Bumblebees do indeed fly, as you can see, therefore they must obey some law of aerodynamics.

The issue, or at least the reason this myth came into bee-ing, is based on differing types of aerodynamic laws.

Insect flight was originally analysed using steady-state aerodynamics, which is the sort of areodynamics that planes and gliders use. This is based on a constant flow of air above and below the wings. Based on this, the wings of a bumblebee, and most other flying insects, are too small to obtain the necessary lift and drag required to remain airborne.

However, bumblebees fly using a more fluidic type of motion, creating eddys and vortexes in the air. These are created by the movement of the wings. When the insect flaps its wings, the do not move straight up and down. The move in in a narrow oval, and invert at each end of the stoke. These vortexes are then used to create the lift needed to keep the insect in the air.

The real question is how something so small can harness the energy required to flap its wings over 200 times a second.

However, in order to maintain air-speed velocity, a

swallow needs to beat its wings 43 times every second.

[email protected]

ourworld.compuserve.com_homepages_garygnu_graphics_philosophical-gnu-sm.jpg


At 08 AUG 2001 07:25PM Robert Lee wrote:

Who is the best Prime Minister we never had? (to quote that famous S/ENL question)? Gary Gnu - that's who! Gary, if you have political aspirations, then you may find the McGillicudy Serious Party of England a suitable vehicle for you - I?d vote for you!

However, on this occasion, I have to disagree with you and assert that you did not successfully debunk the ?myth? that Bumble Bees cannot fly. Your conclusion states:

'The real question is how something so small can harness the energy required to flap its wings over 200 times a second.'

Surely Mr Gnu, if this is the real question and it remains unanswered then the ?myth? perpetuates - Bumbles Bees still can't fly! Similarly, if we couldn't design powerful enough engines, then Jumbo Jets couldn't fly either! One shouldn?t solely focus on the wings as if the energy delivery system wasn?t an integral part of the whole system. You simply moved the problem from aerodynamics to thermodynamics (horse / bee power!).

Just as a (nother) side issue, how many people know that New Zealanders were flying powered aircraft before the Wright Brothers?

http://www.knowledgewave.org.nz/documents/Entrepreneurship.pdf (Page 6)

Robert Lee (BBMPCC, MFS)

(Bumble Bee Mystery Preservation Committee Chairperson, Member of the Flatearth Society)


At 08 AUG 2001 07:26PM Scott, LMS wrote:

Hi all

Gnu sounds very plausible. I was keen on the theory that methane provided some flying things with neutral buoyancy, and the wings provided enough lift/swimming power to infuence direction.

It still takes me an hour to rebuild an index on a file with 40MB split between .OV and .LK, on my test system. My forty or so users run ok with a dedicated indexing machine, a faster server and write behind caching disabled. I figure if anyone is already running with 150 users and no data traffic accidents then they'd probably have maximum tuning already and could teach me a lot on the subject.

Scott, LMS


At 09 AUG 2001 07:06AM Mark Marsh wrote:

Is that an African or European Swallow?

And Is is it Laden or unladen?


At 09 AUG 2001 08:07AM Ashley Chapman wrote:

What are the swallows laden with? Delsey luggage, and a handbag?


At 09 AUG 2001 07:49PM Scott, LMS wrote:

Hi Robert

How could anyone live in NZ and think anything was flat (apart from small areas around Canterbury). I think they would have been really early with the aircraft, because the roads keep sliding off great towering cliffs into the sea. Well they do on the west/windy side.

And I still think of NZ as a place where all the martinis are shaken. Where weatherboard houses are more valuable than brick houses because bricks have a nasty habit of falling on you when things get really shaky…

And with history written by retired journalists, what can we expect when it comes to accuracy. Ie Columbus discovered America, Cook discovered Australia, the (American?) Whalers discovered NZ…

Not looking forward to a certain rugby game in Dunedin

Scott, LMS.


At 09 AUG 2001 08:52PM [email protected] wrote:

Actually, it operates the same way as hummingbirds. It's not that they don't understand it, it's just that it goes against logic. Perhaps my choice of phrase was bad.

It's simillar to most of quantum mechanics. The idea that viewing something can change the outcome is not very logical. Mammels could not keep up that level of energy, but they can. Insects work under completely different models than most other things.

Like my insect (or Bug). The engines in the back, it's cooled by air, it floats. Completely different than a standard car.

And, as proven on this very board some years ago, bugs are instrumental in quantum mechanics.

[email protected]

ourworld.compuserve.com_homepages_garygnu_graphics_philosophical-gnu-sm.jpg


At 12 AUG 2001 05:43PM Matt Crozier wrote:

The idea that viewing something can change the outcome is not very logical.

Yes, but as one observes with use of the debugger during LOSTFOCUS events, this thoery does hold true!

M@


At 12 AUG 2001 06:29PM Robert Lee wrote:

Hi Scott

Shaken but not stirred? We had a big one in 87 but I think you guys had a bigger one in Newcastle about 94?

Another historical accuracy would be the discovery of Pavalova by the Kiwis rather than the oft claimed Aussies.

However, history will record the Aussies victory over the Kiwis in Dunedin on Saturday. Congratulations - the best team on the day one. Times like this I am comforted by the fact I married an Australian - so we won!.


At 12 AUG 2001 08:39PM Scott, LMS wrote:

Hi Robert

You guys had a bigger one than Newcastle, while I was in NZ in Wanaka around October 98, I think it was centred on Haast. Derby, north of Broome (North West Australia), had a bigger quake in 97. The problem in Newcastle was because it was not built to withstand a good shaking. I think they were relatively lucky too, because the borers, aka coal miners have dug out all of the coal from under Newcastle as well.

And that was the first time the Wallabies have ever won in Dunedin (I heard it pronounced Dunny-den by a radio DJ on the weekend - ouch).

Scott, LMS


At 13 AUG 2001 05:53AM Colin Rule wrote:

No, anyone who knows such things will know that they carry coconuts!

They grip the husks, but often need to do this in pairs!!

Colin


At 14 AUG 2001 04:13PM Robert Lee wrote:

Wanaka! What a beautiful place. The Great Barrier Reef and Wanaka would be my two favourite places in the world - both totally different, but both leave you breathtook.

[url=http://www.dehek.com/bayviewwanaka/lakewanaka.html]Wanaka


At 15 AUG 2001 09:21AM [email protected] wrote:

Yes, but as one observes with use of the debugger during LOSTFOCUS events, this thoery does hold true!

So true, so true…

Javascript gives me the same problems with the MS debugger. Must be endemic. At least annoying.

Once had an ARev problem that I couldn't resolve. Traced it through the debugger, it worked fine. Removed the debug, it worked fine. Never had a problem after that. Never did figure that one out.

[email protected]

ourworld.compuserve.com_homepages_garygnu_graphics_gnu-head-sm.jpg


At 16 AUG 2001 06:47PM Robert Lee wrote:

Mr Gnu

Having read and digested your oracles on the subject of "bugs and quantum mechanics", I would have to say it would be difficult to imagine any rational open-minded individual disagreeing with your hypothesis. Your arguments were well thought out, logical and explained in a language that the average layman would understand - a style somewhat reminiscent of Stephen Hawking, yet with an Orwellian gifting of prophetic insight. The alacrity with which you alight upon the deep things of life, bringing your warm glow of illumination to otherwise dull and dark subjects is reminiscent of bumble-bees in spring-time alighting themselves upon the tender fresh new season blossoms - delivering happiness and joy wherever they go.

How you do it and how bumble bees do it is still a mystery to me…

View this thread on the forum...

  • third_party_content/community/commentary/forums_nonworks/c913a190f9ef4ab185256aa1005983e3.txt
  • Last modified: 2023/12/28 07:40
  • by 127.0.0.1