lordvon

It's actually a pretty simple idea that could be significant because it touches on what every aerospace engineer is taught about airfoils in incompressible and inviscid flow, and I think it would contribute to fundamental understanding of lift and drag. My full draft with the abstract, derivation, results (comparison with experimental wind tunnel airfoil data), and discussion is less than 3 pages long.

I agree with your Spanish analogy. I don't want to do a lot of work before peer review.

Thanks for the long post!

I want at the very least to just get my derivation and results reviewed. I hope to avoid minutia of academic formatting, diction, etc. before getting any reviews...

Honestly, it's a really simple idea with significant consequences (if correct, of course). I have written a full draft and it is no more than 3 pages. Basically all aerospace engineering undergrads get taught early on that airfoil drag is just zero in 2D incompressible and inviscid flows, unless you want to use complicated, empirical viscosity imitation or wake momentum thickness methods (e.g. XFOIL). So my theory if correct would be quite impactful because it is so relevant to what all aerospace undergrads are taught.

My theory asserts that there is an omission of physics that is fundamental to understanding airfoil lift and drag, and how they are physically coupled. In my theory, drag is calculated as naturally as lift is, unlike what is currently taught. Although I strongly believe the physics and derivation are correct, I would not be confident enough to submit it for review if the results didn't match so well with airfoil experimental data (NACA TR-824).

I basically want my theory disproven or validated by qualified people. After that, I don't mind conforming to whatever minutia towards publication.

Do you have any experience with InteractiveBrokers?

I don't know about setting up VPS, but the standard way to use IB is to run their main client (either the GUI-based "TWS" or the GUI-less "IB Gateway"), then connect to the main client. Your binary is totally separate from the main client, which you do not modify.

Have you looked at Lightspeed Trading?

I have only tried one algo trading platform, Interactive Brokers. API documentation: http://interactivebrokers.github.io/tws-api/index.html#gsc.t...

Their live market data is gated at 250 ms, so definitely not for HFT. Market data subscriptions are only $5 / month (US Equities, and others I don't remember), and commissions are low.

You can program in C#, Java, VB, C++, or Python. I use their C++ platform. It is not particularly pretty, but it seems well-tested and works. Perhaps most importantly, they have an awesome support phone number. They are responsive and very helpful.

I think cybersecurity in general is hugely lacking. I have had personal devices compromised by an individualized targeted attack and found that there are no tools to easily and reliably diagnose which of your devices are compromised (at least for someone who is not a cybersecurity expert). It seems to me that if someone wants to compromise your devices, they can; offensive tools far outperform current defensive tools. There also does not seem to be any strong legal recourse.

How do you account for charging at home?

Where do you live? That is awesome!

Why do you think that is?

I was not implying they were not looking for funding, I explicitly stated so. They were principally interested in selling units, or, as in your cited text, the means to build them. Again this is clearly not funding for development. The qualitative difference is that, unlike contemporaries, the Wrights were out to provide what they had (or were easily capable of), not what they were yet to have if given money.

What was the point of that link? It shows that even the government assumed they were asking for funding but they were trying to sell fully-developed machines, as I said.

I may be mistaken, but I don't think they ever sought "funding". In fact, they had been offered this by Octave Chanute but declined because they did not want to quit their regular business of selling bicycles. They actually tried to sell units of their fully-developed machine.

They did reciprocate. They freely shared their discoveries with Octave Chanute and spoke about their earlier but still important discoveries at an aeronautics conference Chanute invited them to.

It is amazing what they had to invent and discover to get from the then-current state of the art to a practical flying machine. To give a few specific examples: invent modern propeller theory, dispel long-revered aerodynamic experiment results (Smeaton's coefficient and Lilienthal's airfoil performance data), manufacture a sufficiently lightweight and powerful engine (with significant help on this front from a mechanic they employed for their bicycle business), and pretty much the only effective aircraft control schemes at the time (when people did not even think control was that important!). I am probably missing a few things but each of the points I listed required lots of effort and iteration.

They deserved much more than they got, and tried to use patents for its intended legal purpose. People just didn't play fair by the Wright brothers' estimation. One could speculate that they maliciously and/or selfishly held back innovation, but if you look at their character throughout their journey of invention it seems more likely that they decided to engage unscrupulous enemies, which unfortunately absorbed a lot of their time.

They demonstrated integrity. Inventors all over the world were chomping at the bit of flight by making hops and such, but no one could make a practical flying machine. While others would grandstand on small successes, the Wright brothers focused only on the ultimate end goal of a practical flying machine. They did not make public demonstrations, even though they were far ahead of all others. A small number of people witnessed their progress, and word would spread slowly. But since they were not overtly public about this great progress people doubted them and even accused them of being frauds. This did not deter them, and they continued with their work. The truth was finally revealed to the whole world when they made demonstrations in France, having completed a practical flying machine. It was utterly sensational all around the world, amplified by the fact that they had been highly doubted by prominent figures. These prominent public detractors promptly made public apologies.

In my opinion, the Wright brothers are the greatest inventors / founders in human history. Their biographies are definitely worth a read. My favorites are the ones by David McCullough and Peter Jakab.

Yeah, but nothing compared to Charles Guan, or so I've heard.

I am really surprised to see Jamison being mentioned here as if he were a household name. I remember him from the Invention Studio at Georgia Tech.

well, momentum is defined as the product of mass and velocity. movement implies velocity, and we are not talking about massless things here, so yes, movement implies momentum.

though less technical, "movement" implies "momentum", no?

In the person + bike system, the brake action would result in internal forces. I don't see how this system could translate.

how does conservation of linear momentum apply? edit: this question was asked when the parent comment claimed that this machine could "generate linear momentum" from the wheels.

It seems this was a popular hack at one time. I hope this no longer happens. Anyway it's great that you were able to "shake it off", so to speak.

Yeah so the only reason you wouldn't use 'using' is when you can't :)

Modern c++ is awesome. I definitely appreciate being able use c++14 where I work (as well as 'pragma once'). I really look forward to being able to use c++17.

"Using" also allows you to have templated aliases, unlike typedefs. There's really no reason to use typedefs.

I get the feeling that companies like Amazon and Apple purposefully try to hide as much as possible/tolerable the fact that you are subscribed to something (specifically, Apple apps and Amazon's Audible). I've spent tens if not hundreds of dollars towards subscriptions I didn't even know I had, and I'm afraid this might account for a shocking amount of revenue, as this article suggests. Microsoft on the other hand seems to let you know when you are going to charged again (I've experienced this with my office license subscription).

To your last point, not true. I think I fit the category of hardware and got an interview with a prototype.

Where do you live?

That's the conclusion you draw from judging the poor but resourceful?

And about this you cannot lie, even though you're a lawyer.

template <typename Company> void news() { std::cout << Company::ToString() << " employee writes of low wages, poor morale; company denies claims"; }

Sorry, I did not realize it was invisible. It is robhlee32 at gmail

Oh I am sorry, I did not realize it was invisible. It is robhlee32 at gmail.

Hi tachim, you can view a user's email address by clicking on their profile name.