Originally Posted by _ben:
“The assertion is made at the start of the program that only by taking something apart and putting it back together can you really understand how it works, but I think they're overstating the value of this. For example, there is a belief among a certain sector of electronics hobbyists that you can learn how a circuit works by soldering components onto a board. I spent years at university learning how to design electronic circuits and I can tell you there's a lot of equations involved.”
“The assertion is made at the start of the program that only by taking something apart and putting it back together can you really understand how it works, but I think they're overstating the value of this. For example, there is a belief among a certain sector of electronics hobbyists that you can learn how a circuit works by soldering components onto a board. I spent years at university learning how to design electronic circuits and I can tell you there's a lot of equations involved.”
But it isn't the equations that make the circuits work. The same applies to the equations which describe internal combustion engines. This programme at least gives you an idea of the basic principles of the mechanisms involved. Much harder to do with electronics of course.
Originally Posted by Rosebuddy:
“It shows that certain TV presenters could do the crossword in silence for 30 minutes and people would watch it engrossed .
Gotta be the cheapest 30 minute TV show ever .
I'd be interested how the spark was produced, I saw no battery.
Also why an engine RPM increases when the butterfly flap allows more air/petrol mixture
into the combustion chamber has never been explained to my complete satisfaction.”
“It shows that certain TV presenters could do the crossword in silence for 30 minutes and people would watch it engrossed .
Gotta be the cheapest 30 minute TV show ever .
I'd be interested how the spark was produced, I saw no battery.
Also why an engine RPM increases when the butterfly flap allows more air/petrol mixture
into the combustion chamber has never been explained to my complete satisfaction.”
The engine had a magneto, which is a small electrical generator which creates pulses of energy for the spark.
Think of the alternative name for the butterfly valve, the throttle. It's called that for a reason. Closing it restricts air flow through the engine, slowing it down. Opening it allows more air to flow through, speeding it up. At the same time the carburrettor must also supply more fuel to burn with the air which creates more pressure in the cylinder which generates the torque to accelerate the engine.
Originally Posted by Rosebuddy:
“ In fact, I don't think the boffins know, and like the theory of how fast flowing air going over the leading wing edge makes a plane rise [ HAH ! ], they just make up some half-arsed hypothesis hoping no-one will cotton on.”
“ In fact, I don't think the boffins know, and like the theory of how fast flowing air going over the leading wing edge makes a plane rise [ HAH ! ], they just make up some half-arsed hypothesis hoping no-one will cotton on.”
Interesting comment in the light of the reply:
Originally Posted by Shrike:
“Air going over the curved upper surface has to move faster (as its a greater distance) than the air going under the wing. Since the air has to move faster it thus has less density which 'sucks' the wing upwards. See Boyle's law
”
“Air going over the curved upper surface has to move faster (as its a greater distance) than the air going under the wing. Since the air has to move faster it thus has less density which 'sucks' the wing upwards. See Boyle's law
”
This is one of the half-arsed explanations used to explain things that aren't easily understood, that Rosebuddy mentioned. A flat plate put at an angle to the airflow has no curved surface, does not take longer for the air to flow over the top than the bottom yet produces lift.
Originally Posted by _ben:
“But it doesn't though - air going over the top of the wing doesn't arrive at the trailing edge at the same time as air going underneath the wing.”
“But it doesn't though - air going over the top of the wing doesn't arrive at the trailing edge at the same time as air going underneath the wing.”
Well it does very nearly. The sharp trailing edge of the wing ensures that. The upper surface flow certainly moves faster over the more curved surface. The air doesn't move faster because it has further to go but because the streamlines are pushed closer together, rather as happens in a venturi. The upper and lower surfaces of the wing act like halves of a venturi.
Originally Posted by Doghouse Riley:
“I s'ppose this programme is fine for those who like this presenter, but he's never been my cup of tea. So I wouldn't watch it.
As for "how to," information, there's thousands of these videos on YouTube, on practically .....everything.
Unfortunately, some are more about the person presenting the information, rather than about the detail, but it's often the same with TV programmes.”
“I s'ppose this programme is fine for those who like this presenter, but he's never been my cup of tea. So I wouldn't watch it.
As for "how to," information, there's thousands of these videos on YouTube, on practically .....everything.
Unfortunately, some are more about the person presenting the information, rather than about the detail, but it's often the same with TV programmes.”
He may not be your cup ot tea, but James May is ideally suited to this kind of TV. Plenty of detail here, too much for some possibly. People don't watch his shows because they like him as such, but because they like his informal yet highly informative style. He also gets directly involved with whatever is being built or taken apart and there is a warts and all aspect which makes it more entertaining.
Yes there are many how to videos on youtube and all over the various Discovery channels. Sadly the narrations often aren't up to the job.
=====================================================
I just watched the phone and guitar episodes. There was little new to me in the guitar programme though it was interesting watching it reassembled. The phone was a real nostaglia trip for me though. My grandparents had a pre-war bakelite phone. They had a distinctive feel, sound and smell which is very evocative (the phones, not my grandparents). Our own phone was the more modern dual colour plastic handset, but we still had a named exchange which you dialled using the first three letters (this was the reaon for the letters on the dial, they had no other purpose). When the programme ended with the phone ringing I got quite emotional, you just don't hear that sound any more.
As they used to say in letters to Points of View: "more please".






I suppose it's just as most men wouldn't watch a show about knitting or needlework. Some things are for blokes and some for the ladies.