costard

Heh, sacrifices made in the cause of good science. Why let a small thing like a uniform stand in the way of a budding rocket scientist? Still, it's not me suffering from Mrs Affentitten's observations.

Good idea SeaMonkey, using a low viscosity oil (a vegetable oil would be environmentally preferable) should provide some interesting observations. I cocked up, by the way, with the statement "n hasn't increased". It has, of course, increased with the increased mass of air pumped into the bottle.

I like John's explanation - 'tis truly elegant. How much does the sg change with the addition of the detergent? I suspect that the increase wouldn't translate to a noticeable change in maximum altitude. Back to the original question of where the energy comes from - it's put into the mass of air in the bottle by compression in the pump; is the joule value of the stored energy the latent heat of the air mass? Boyle's Law PV=nRT, P has increased whilst T has remained almost constant. n has remained constant, R is a constant (8.14?), therefore my reasoning ability has run out and I can continue no further - help?

But the metal rod is so easily come by - and it telescopes up to fit nicely into a pack too: just "borrow" it from the nearest unoccupied vehicle. Otherwise you have to battle someone for their broom - kicking a grandma in the shins to get her to let go just isn't done.

I thought the caseless round had been dropped - the brass case from a standard round takes a goodly amount of heat with it when ejected; without this, the weapon heats up too quickly.

Nice work Vark! DT - of course I cherry-pick, no fun otherwise.

It looks like the fact it used 2 engines and (effectively) two gearboxes gave it an advantage in mechanical reliability - that and the weight, and despite having twice as many engines to go wrong at the wrong time. Vauxhaul, eh? When did they go under? Wiki sez the design brief recognised the lack of a need to fight trench warfare JasonC, thanks for the info - and the reasoning.

Man, who stole your teddy bear? decision/assault delays - some decisions will be made on the instant: a unit will return fire if not pinned or suffering from morale failure, will generally seek cover if they come under fire; delays are a modelling of experience of the troops (WW2 saw large numbers of conscript troops with very little training thrown into battle), command cohesion (if your squad is ordered to assault a building but isn't within the command radius of its leader, a delay penalty occurs) and suppression. If you seek to play with instant reaction training, try going with veteran or better troops, in command. The delays also balance, to some extent, the time allowance for the decision making process that the player has with WEGO. vehicles not firing on an occupied foxhole - if the crew can't see the occupants it will only area fire at your order. If the crew is green and has come under fire, the gunner will most likely button up and not open fire. They will also seek to preserve themselves from what they perceive as a stupid order: "Advance, die for your country and your commander's pleasure!" is an order that might be obeyed by troops of the most fanatic bent (and these are modelled, but probably aren't in the demo): anybody else will consider fragging their leader a realistic solution to their problem (and this isn't modelled, alas, the vehicles will merely retreat). Frustrating for sure, but the modelling pushes you to providing suppressing fire with MGs from a distance, as they are designed to do. I think the bit missing here is the Area Fire command. Try it - works pretty good. A couple of minutes of suppressing fire will lower the foxhole inhabitants' morale, at which point they become easy prey for an assaulting squad. Firepower values at range are given for various weapons (click on a unit and hit "enter"), you can do some rough calculations of effectiveness from here. magical mgs - the game engine is ten years old and home computers still don't have the grunt to build a 3D model that deforms in real-time as the real world does in the midst of battle. The programming and processing required for the degree of realism you would seem to expect lies outside the purview of a $50 game played on a $1000 machine. Thus, some elements of realism are definitely fudged, most certainly they aren't represented in the graphics. Finally, playing against the AI is good fun, but nothing like playing against a human opponent. Garn, give it a go! Or wait until CM:Normandy (not its real name) comes out and play real time with the newer game engine.

Ignorance is a reason, not an excuse.

JoMc67, Books - what books? You taunt us with hints...

Did the Tiger 1 have a different power train? I'm guessing all these units were going into new Tiger 1 hulls and providing repair stock - it seems an odd decision to manufacture for unreliability, particularly for German engineers.

I find it difficult to believe that the designers and engineers on the KT project didn't know about this before the unit went into the front line. Given that, is it a case of those on high not understanding or caring about the unreliability (for power political reasons they may not have been able to come at further delays to deployment), or is it a lack of quality in the manufacturing process for the gearbox only?

No scabies - a real barbarian has scabies from sleeping out with the dogs and never, ever touching soap. I call faux barbarian.

But Diesel, you miss out on all that information! Which products not to buy - because a large part of their shelf price now has to pay for the advertising campaign and the product quality will fall to compensate: the ad campaign has to generate profits, or it's of no earthly use; the cost compensation has to come from somewhere.

I think you'll find it's "whose" - even Australian police aren't stupid enough to ask the other question.. I applaud your taste - it's a great song to sing, different characters giving the punch line different meanings along the way.

They're gun ho's, is what he meant to say.

Given that "gun" in Australian slang means "good" - e.g. "He's a gun welder." - I find the meaning difficult to decipher from the context. Does the writer truly believe that the US has an international reputation for farm implement use? What references does s/he cite?:confused:

Well, maybe, for a given value of "good". I can certainly predict being able to eat less food if it's all vitamised into a single liquid serve - texture and flavour matter, ask anybody who eats for pleasure. The juxtaposition of the two sentences implies some sort of cause and effect relationship - until you read the bloody things and attempt to parse them. "Times of weight loss" don't happen when the test rat is able to eat ravenously, and I doubt that the presence or otherwise of ghrelin has much effect in these circumstances. If, however, the test showed that a starved rat, injected with ghrelin, did not convert fat to energy, I might be more accepting of the claim that "it inhibits the breakdown of stored fat (is there any other type?) during times of weight loss". Lots of holes in my back yard needing to be dug. Hihohiho...

Fewer calories in + more calories burned = fewer calories stored. Every other idea about how to lose weight is a sop to weak willed individuals with money they can afford to give away. Buy a shovel and dig some holes, chop some wood, go for a run, go for a swim, go for a walk - HEY FATTY, GET OFF YOUR ARSE AND DO SOME WORK!

... a landscape covered in novelty red Fokker Triplane cakes.

Kingfish, Message in your pm box. Cheers.

..and the sheer Muslims would be those wearing spandex?

Lots of defense contracts taken up in the same period are to be viewed as dodgy. The decision didn't seem to make sense at the time, and still doesn't.

Hi Kingfish. Just a thought - it might be some weirdass interference from your anti-virus software? Try installing with this turned off and see what happens.

It's probably worth remembering that you're talking about an organisation that is made up of armed men, trained to kill: i.e. there is the real opportunity for matters of incompetence in leadership to be decided in the field. Most military leaders are aware of this possibility - the prudent ones never forget it.