Here is a list of all the postings David Mellor has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Were to buy lipo battery|
Batteries tend to puff up more if they are stored at "full" charge for months. It is a pain, but if you can drain the battery down to its storage voltage, then they are a lot less likely tp puff up in use.
|Thread: C of G Which way up and why?|
Keith, some people use the expression "nose down" or "nose heavy" as another way of saying the CG has been moved forward of some reference position (usually the plan-marked position for the CG). It is common to do this on the maiden flight and ease the CG back on subsequent flights 'till the pilot is happy with it.
Edited By David Mellor on 19/08/2018 11:02:55
I've always assumed it doesn't matter how the CG is checked - as long as it is within the designer's range for the maiden.
The working CG of a model isn't a fixed quantity, but a matter of the pilot's own personal preference.
The Neutral Point, however, is a fixed parameter and it is the static margin (how close to the NP the CG is) that determines the longitudinal sensitivity (in pitch). If you like it docile, have a big static margin.
Some weird CGs exist...... the Dixielander has its CG well behind the TE, so not even on the wing at all. Many old timers share this characteristic owing to big horizontal stabilisers.
I fly a lot of "flying wing" slopers. Flying wings have a reputation for being very sensitive to CG. Yet I find chevron (swept back) flying wings - such as the HK Ridge Ryder - to have an extremely wide range of flyable CG.
|Thread: Great Service - But!|
Ignore what the Guardian says altogether.
Read the academic literature.
You will have to pay a small sum to gain access to the current on-line academic journals, but it is a good investment if you want to read the peer-reviewed scientific source literature.
Some of the "higher level" review findings of some of the academic pare publicly available.
For example, "The Lancet" is globally respected as the world's leading independent peer reviewed medical journal. It recently published a very readable overview of the health implications of micro-plastics.
Edited By David Mellor on 18/08/2018 17:52:22
And recent analysis of hundreds of brands shows that the average micro-plastic particle content is approximately twice that of tap water.
Not only a brilliant marketing con job, but one that appears to also sell you more plastic particles per litre to drink than tap water!
|Thread: Landing when the field isnít flat|
I know... it is crazy popular!
But almost everything you need to know is on the first two pages.
If not, the search facility is a most excellent tool. Failing that, PM me and I'll help answer any questions (I've made far too many......)
|Thread: Great Service - But!|
Pretty much all drinking water contains plastic microparticles.
Much of the plastic falls as airborne fine dust carried by the wind and weather systems (the city of Paris has measured more than 3 tones of micro-plastic dust per year falling within its boundaries). The plastic dust enters aquifers, rivers, lakes and reservoirs via ordinary surface run-off.
Unless the recharge time of your Buxton spring water aquifer is more than 50 years, then the chances are that it too carries micro plastic particles.
Basically the stuff is so widespread it is scientifically a surprise when it is not found in analyses, rather than when it is found.
Edited By David Mellor on 18/08/2018 12:32:28
This will help a bit:-
Just to be absolutely clear that this is 100% on topic for this thread - the HobbyKing plastic packaging in the photograph in post 1 is single use plastic.
I love Hobbyking - they're great.
But they need to drop single use plastic packaging.
If you drink bottled water, you are ingesting particles of plastic that someone somewhere has dumped.....
And this is why:-
So the photograph of the plastic packaging in post 1 of the thread looks innocuous, and once we chuck it in the bin we happily forget about it. But.... it has unfortunate ways of finding its way back to us and future generations.
40 years ago we holidayed in Malta.
One day was bin day and we had instructions to put our waste in the little black bin and put it out for collection.
The bin was tiny - not much bigger than a cinema popcorn bucket. Looking along the street even families of 6 or 7 had just one tiny bin. All glass bottles and jars were returned to the shop from whence they came.
At the time I made the grave error of regarding their efforts as rather primitive........ I regret that now.
Now I realise it is us that are primitive by generating phenomenal quantities of long-lived rubbish that turns up everywhere on the planet - no corner on earth is free from plastic junk blown in on the breeze, thrown up by the tide or carried down by the river.
John, chin up, mate.
The darkest hour is just before dawn. As others have said, the tide against plastic packaging is very slowly showing tiny signs of turning.
One day our descendants will laugh about how foolish it was to have wrapped products up in plastic.
Since this thread began I have - very politely and diplomatically - contacted HobbyKing and drawn their attention to their plastic packaging and drawn their attention to this thread.
They have - equally politely and very promptly - replied and have promised to consider the issue of using plastic packaging within their Logistics Team. They said that in recent time they have already taken some steps to minimise materials they send out as part of their packaging processes.
In a subsequent e-mail I requested one other thing of Hobbyking - namely that they pass the correspondence upwards to the directors for information (that some customers would like to see an end to plastic packaging).
They seem like a decent company.............
Edited By David Mellor on 17/08/2018 19:02:51
And like the OP, I think HK offer exceptionally good service and exceptionally good value. All part from the plastic packaging which is something that I think more people should complain about. To HK themselves, out of common courtesy.
Just to illustrate how lobbying can influence the UK government, it is worth reading about the UK's shameful record on dumping nuclear waste at sea. It is all in the public record, and is an environment piece of history, not political.
It was a British annual event to dump hundreds of tons of toxic, radioactive waste in the Atlantic ocean and hope no one would object. In fairness, having just come out of WW2, politicians had other concerns that weighed more heavily at the time. This started in 1949 and objection wasn't possible as relatively few people were aware of it initially.
Gradually some sense prevailed and a 2-year moratorium was called for in 1983 (the international treaty known as the London Dumping Convention).
However, in its wisdom, the UK government planned to ignore the moratorium and dump its nuclear waste at sea anyway, in utter disregard of the international treaty it had just committed our country to. This turned out to be a good decision because the National Union of Seafarers thought that our government should abide by its own acceptance of the internationally agreed moratorium. The Union won the day. Dumping of nuclear waste at sea was stopped altogether and the international treaty extended the moratorium to an outright ban.
All change for the better starts this way - those in authority do not give in if no-one is pushing back against them. Slavery might still be the order of the day otherwise.......
Edited By David Mellor on 17/08/2018 15:14:05
The problem here doesn't lie with the meaning of "accept", it lies with the description of "what it is" that is being accepted.
And "what it is" is a fait accompli because we aren't being invited to accept a proposition (to scatter our waste plastic far and wide) - the government is doing that on your behalf and expects you to not rail against it. As long as no one does rail against it, the government will continue to deliberately evade EU pollution targets and export trash to countries that can't properly deal with it. I personally do not think most people here find that acceptable at all.
What you can do about it is find and support a lobby group that best reflects your concerns (there are many such).
And, as Piers says, you can also "do your bit".
But wouldn't it be shameful to have ploughed through this (and similar) threads and do nothing.......?
Edited By David Mellor on 17/08/2018 14:44:39
I'm a little surprised that 3 of you here are saying that. Perhaps others are too.
Just for my benefit, I'd like be sure what you actually mean.
Supertigrefan has summed it up well with his phrase.
I believe that if his phrase is truncated it preserves his original, essential meaning, so are you saying you agree with this statement:-
"It seems most of us know and acknowledge the problems of pollution but accept it"
If so, do you think that "acceptance" is what each of us needs to change?
The reason I ask is to do with the psychological implications. Surely if a particular proposition is accepted then its very acceptance defeats any further mental effort to help change the proposition?
Edited By David Mellor on 17/08/2018 12:20:19
John, it seems to me you are right - it would have to cost more and, as you say, that never goes down well.
But is it cheaper to slowly choke the planet instead?
For you and me, yes it is cheaper to continue as we are because our generation won't live long enough to see the consequences.
But our generation can already measure the rate of increase in damage to the global environment building up, and the rate of species extinction also building up. In all of geological history there have only been 5 periods of species extinction as big as the one we are in now - and one of those required a socking big meteorite (wiping out the dinosaurs). So extinctions are a "big deal" because they are one measure of how quickly things are changing.
So perhaps our generation should actually take the first step....... which is simply adjusting our attitude towards the waste that each of us deals with on a daily basis. That costs nothing at all. And is the best of all possible starts....
Would it still be profitable for destination countries to accept waste from us (if they were made to comply to standards)? In principle, yes, but it would definitely cost the exporter far more because they would have to supply some sort of technological input as well as regulatory/monitoring/control expertise. But it could work extremely well for both parties - as good business deals should.
Edited By David Mellor on 17/08/2018 09:43:32
I think that what this thread illustrates so far is that most of us think that waste (in all its various forms) is being adequately dealt with.
Some of it is, thankfully.
But far from all of it. Much of it (all of the gaseous carbon compounds) isn't.
That wouldn't matter, except for the fact that what escapes into the environment is causing serious damage to the environment that sustains the lives of future generations.......but, it is cheaper and easier to pretend all is well as it is.
Yes, we do take nuclear waste off others. BNFL have been processing Japanese nuclear waste. Reprocessing creates more nuclear waste at the reprocessing site....here.
This GWT is the problem with the idea floated by The Wright Stuff in an earlier post that our plastic packaging "ends up in landfill".
It is somehow comforting to think that it does, and that our fine British landfills are safe, secure and hold our plastic packaging until is no longer a hazard to the environment (thousands of years).
The reality couldn't be more different.
It is called the Global Waste Trade (GWT).
Developed countries (us) make waste we can't be bothered to deal with, partly because our national Environmental Policies (EPs) mean that it would be expensive to deal with it responsibly in our own countries.
Third World countries don't have such stringent EPs and so we dump our rubbish on them and they gain foreign currency from us because we pay them to accept it.
Economically, it is brilliant. We solve our dirty problems at a fraction of the cost and the recipient gets income otherwise unavailable.
Environmentally it is utterly disastrous. For what are perfectly obvious and perfectly well known reasons.
Want to know how responsible your country is environmentally? Look up how much of its waste it exports.....
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!