Flying hovercraft!

Bungee jumping, kite-boarding... Why do all the extremest sports seem to come from New Zealand? The lightweight, canvas-covered wings are attached to the craft with what he calls a "Jesus pin". "If that comes out, you see Jesus," he said. Because the hovercraft is not classed as an aircraft under New Zealand aviation laws, the operator does not require a pilot's licence. Daily Telegraph.  

Topic by Kiteman 

City Flying Taxi

LINK"Developed by the British company Avcen, the Jetpod is a small twin-jet aircraft with newly developed VQSTOL (Very Quiet Short Take-off and Landing) technology - and it’s aimed to make short-distance air travel possible in built-up urban areas by the year 2010.""75 Jetpods would service a city the size of London and thereby relieve road traffic of 37,000 return car journeys every day. A one-way flight from outer London to the city centre would take just 4 to 6 minutes. The Jetpod doesn’t even require a conventional runway. It can land on grass, dirt or stone-strewn areas. Avcen designed the Jetpod using the latest jet engine technologies for optimal fuel efficiency and lower emissions noise levels, when compared to car transportation.TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONSDRIVE SYSTEM: Dual jet enginesENGINE THRUST: 2 x 13.3 kN (3,000 lbs)CRUISING SPEED: 550 km/h (350 mph)FLYING RANGE: 1480 km (920 miles)OPERATING PAYLOAD: 700 kg (1,543 lbs)SEATING CAPACITY: 7"This is pretty cool, can't wait to see if it actually gets into production.

Topic by laminterious 

How can i fly for under $200? Answered

Something i can build that will make me fly?

Question by Aron313   |  last reply

what makes an instructable fly or die? Answered

I recently published 2 instructables one I'm really excited about "Vintage tin and timber signs" And one I think is a bit lame "CNC cut Paper Rack" that  i just made cause i was bored and wanted to enter a contest. Strange thing is, the paper rack is the instructable that has been featured and is getting all the views but only has 4 favourites ,were as the signs instructable  has 11 favourites but only 200 views. Did I tag it wrong? or is it just not that interesting? any feedback is welcome,

Question by liquidhandwash   |  last reply

How to Fly for Sooper Freaking Cheap!!

Are you between 18 and 22 RIGHT NOW? You're in luck.I found this deal by AirTran called "X-Fares"You just show up at their ticket counter and say, "Hey! I wanna get to _ with your X-Fares program!" And they charge you only $70 per leg. I showed up in Boston 40 minutes before a flight, and got to San Francisco that same night, in two legs, with no delays. Do it! Travel the country! Check out their blackout dates before you go. Some ("long haul") legs cost $100 instead of $70.

Topic by stasterisk   |  last reply

Flugtag -- human powered flight?

Have you seen the videos for Flugtag? It looks like a great excuse to build something fun and jump in the water, and maybe fly a few feet too.Most of them look like this: And here's the US record holder, at a whopping 155 feet: I bet we could do better than that, especially with a drop. ;) Anyone have a proposal for Team Instructables? They hold these things around the world, so it's not just US. I bet we could pick up on style points as well.From the official page:The first Red Bull Flugtag took place in Vienna, Austria, in 1991. Since then, more than 35 Flugtags have been held around the world -- from Ireland to San Francisco -- attracting up to 300,000 spectators. The record for the farthest flight-to-date currently stands at 195 feet set in 2000 at Flugtag Austria. The U.S. record stands at 155 feet set in Nashville, TN in 2007.Teams are judged on three criteria: distance, creativity and showmanship. What constitutes a craft is purely up to the imagination of the participating teams. Past Red Bull Flugtag entries have included a pregnant cow, a diaper-delivering stork, a pimped-out Cadillac, a giant Oompa Loompa, and yes folks -- a lobster named Larry.

Topic by canida   |  last reply

Finally got my print delivered

I've attached all the photos to my make it real challenge instructable.

Topic by The Cartographer   |  last reply

Anti-gravity Machine concept

This is a concept I came up with for an idea of an anti-gravity machine.  Let me just state for the record... I do not think this will actually work.  However, while I am quite certain this idea should not work... based upon my limited knowledge of science... it would seem like it could work.  Unfortunately I know I am never going to spend the thousands if not millions of dollars to build this concept to find out. The basic premise of the idea is the use of angular momentum to overcome the force of gravity.  Imagine if you will, a gyroscope spinning at such a high velocity that its outward force overcomes the downward force of gravity.  Naturally, one of the big obstacles is generating the speeds necessary to create the velocity such that angular momentum is greater than downward force. What I essentially propose is a spinning ring that is propelled in the same way as a maglev train.  Using Electromagnetic propulsion or EMP to accelerate a ring in a vacuum by the utilization of a flowing electrical current and magnetic fields may in theory generate the speeds necessary for the force to overcome gravity.  Unfortunately, the power to run such a vehicle and the weight to power ratio are significant obstacles. Two of these rings above one another I theorize can create tremendous propulsion if the angles of the rings were changed.  Using hydrolics to change the angle of alignment of these two rings may create incredible forward momentum.  Once more, such a vehicle would not be limited to operation within Earth's atmosphere unlike jet or other propulsion mechanisms.  In fact, it should operate at peak efficiency in a zero gravitational environment. This is all theory... and I'd love to know if it is indeed as crazy as it sounds.

Topic by DarkRubyMoon   |  last reply

How can i make "something" to fly ? like rc helicopter...

Hello , im new here , congrats for the great community. I want to build "something" i dont know what it will be yet , but i want to make it fly. How can i achieve it ? It would be very light ~< 1/4 kilo maybe less , i thought it would be a great idea to use something like this;=item1c0d6ba54f but i dont know if it will help.. i want to "fly" it to all directions and control it left right backward and forward , up and down.... any ideas ? thanks !

Question by eisvoleas7   |  last reply

Repulsine - the great mystery...

Even before the repulsine saw some attention during WW2 there were sightings of what we know call the classic UFO shape.Be it in Austria, Poland or other places in Europe, people reported weird disk like thing with a dome flying around.What leaked in images and documents after the war shoed that the repulsine looked basically identical to what people saw as a UFO in the sky over big parts of Europe.Then again, the repulsine appearently never made it a usable stage, same for most jet fighters at the time and still they flew around...If we now just take it for granted that actual test flights really happened back then you might wonder why we did not see any after the war anymore.For most critics it is a simple sign of facts and "confirms" that the replusine might have been a nice idea but never anything that really left the ground.As said, I often like to dig deeper and in this case the digging took far more years than what I planned on.I can not provide any solid proof for the following but I am sure even a sceptic will come to similar conclusions after reading it.Try to find some "eye witness" reports from people who saw the so called "Roswell UFO".Yes the one that made Area51 so secret and famous...Reports can be boiled down to some essential features of the hull, for those who saw it proof that it is alien.Three distinct round shpes on the underside, like you add the bottom of an egg to a round disk.Said disc of the bottom was also shaped like a wing, or the flying disk toys our kids like to play with.On the other side the shape grew up like a half shphere with an added cone or round top on it.On these area they claimed to have see engine outlets or similar and appearently the top cone was spinning in another direction than the rest of the UFO.Now I am no expert for Roswell but if I leave area and time out then I could have been fooled to think these people discribed exactly the same thing people saw a few year eariel flying over Europe.The Roswell UFO was not from another world, just stolen from the looser of a really bad war.What was seen was a working Repulsine, be it an original or something the US created from the 5 prototypes that disappeared after the war.Ha, ha, good one, then why don't we saw them flying after this anymore?Well, for starters it was a testflight gone wrong.Presumable it was planned to be limited to Area51 but the pilot lost control.Considering the Nazies appearently did their best to kill everyone involved in the project before the aliies arrived it is no big surprise.What that test flight would have shown is the impossible manouvers people already witnessed over Europe.90° or more turns at full speed instead of making a turn like a plane, sudden changes in alitude as well as accelleration on a level that makes even modern rockets blush.And if it really was the first bigger testflight they did it explains the big secrecy about the Roswell incident and what followed and created Area51 as we knew it.A "weapon" capable of these things would mean total dominance and options to impove planes and more.So why did they not even do that - or did they?The repulsine was created based on what we call today fringe- or pseudo- sience.If there is only one peroson, or a few that can even understand the claimed working principles that it can't be science as we know it.So, lets take a look what things were already heavily used in the repulsine that "we" claim to have developed or discovered decades later.Coanda effect.When air travels over a surface then it will follow the surface.You can try this with paper strips and blowing on them as well as a stream of water and some shaped objects.Long known but never found any real use until the military picked it up.For example air inlets were then developed to utilise the coanda effect.Remember how a lot of them these days look like a ducted fan housing?The round and slightly conical shape of the inlet will actually act like an airfoil and provide lift - of pulls forward in the direction of the air flow direction of the engine.I supercars we use it to create more downforce and better aerodynamics.Venturi effect.Again a very old one but funny enough also a major factor to make a jet engine work.Tesla turbine.In the Repulsine the rotating copper disks acted like a huge Tesla turbine by using a similar effect.The space between the disks got smaller and smaller towards the outer perimiter.Due to the fast rotation the molecules were accelerated and this created a partial vacuum.We use these principles today for specail vacuum pumps but also in military applications.Harmonics.Without harmonics and resonance the Repulsine would have been impossible.And at a first glance it seems we never made any use from that bit of the machine.Then why do we design exhaust systems in such a way than already the extractors ensure a pump like action and controlled backflow?The sound a good exhaust makes is also based on using the harmonics created by the explosions in the cylinders and expanding gasses.We learned that it is far more efficient to use harmonics and resonance in an exhaust system from somehwere ;)Plasma.The repulsine was said to have emitted a bright glow during certain movements or speeds.To create plasma we need a lot of energy, not so much however if the plasma is a by-product anyways.We learned that a high enough voltage differencial in a vacuum can create a nice plasma arc.From there things like analog TV monitors were created.But we never made anything that creates plasma for any use in an atmosphere.Well, unless you start to check supersonic rocket engines and other things.The working principle is very, very close here in some applications like the ramjet.Vortex energy.Today we see all vortex energy stuff as a free energy scam or at best a waste of time.But from the inlet to the outlet the entire Repulsine utilised what we now know as vortex energy, vortex math and so on.The air is twisted and spun around so many times that it is hard to keep track - but it always happened in a harmonic and resonant fashion.In some way this is implepemented in very expensive cars to keep the ventilation system almost silent even at full power.If you ever take an expensive car apart you might wonder why the air system is not as smooth and straight as you would have expected to get this silence ;)There is more but the list would become too long ;)So, if the repulsine was really that great then why was it taken apart to only utilise fractions of it in other things?If you have something really great that combines a lot of things then no one would suspect if you "developed or discovered" some of it in other projects.And to give you a very bad comparison for the other way around:If you know how to combine a petrol engine with some long blades then you could fly!I know, we did that already but you get the point.I can give you a motor and blades but that would not mean you could build a plane or even helicopter!At that time and still today something like a Repulsine would upset the "balance of power".If claims are correct then the engines of the repulsine were only required to provide the enrgy for directional changes or speed but it flew on "free energy" as the main engine system.In lame words like a jumbo jet that only needs a small engine for the hydraulics and electricity...Another big problem is the replication even if you would have a complete and working model to disect.You see most parts were brazed or welded as screw or rivets would have been problematic in certain areas.Other parts like the Kudo horn like intake systems would even today pose a challenge if you want to replicate them 100% correct.And if your understanding of science and physics greatly differs from those who originally created the thing...If your understanding tells you a dice has 6 sides (we all know that) but in my understanding it would have 16 then you would never understand how my dice rolls ;)Bringing true free energy of any form into this world is only allowed if someone can still make good money from it.Just check solar cells and wind generators - we all can have them but our providers make sure they have enough of them as well ;)Will we ever see a fully working Repulsine again?Of course !Some people like old cars, some collect old planes or old machines and tools.A great project for people in the right trades is always to build thier own little steam engine.So to say as a reminder of how it all started.Same will happen with the Repulsine as the first really utilised free energy machine the world had.The war and killings were not what really scared the world.This happened and will happen over and over again to various extends.Really scary was once certain people realised what might happen if over there the war would end with a victory and people would have time to develop for peaceful things instead.Without the war or this idiot Hitler a peaceful war would have taken over the world by storm.Those making sure we know nothing else but paying for our fuel and energy would have lost their monoply.Times change though...We destroyed our world with our needs for fossil fuels and electricity.What is left we destroy by chopping it down, digging it out or just by building new estates on prime farm land.People are now more desperate then ever to find ways to reduce their energy bills or enviromental impact.Otherwise Google wouldn't make billions on all the fake free energy videos out there.But what would it take to recreate the Repulsine?The person able to come up with the understanding of at least attempting to build one again would need to have certain qualifications and titles.He or she would hold a Nodel price for completing some of our known laws of physics or for finding some of the still missing ones.It would be a quite hard to understand and like person too, maybe even highly autistic.The person would also have an addiction like need to complete things, add the missing bits.And of course a totallydifferent understanding on how nature and the universe work.David T. from England is such a person, or at least the closest mankind can offer so far.He can see math in his head as shapes and images.Complex math problems appear to him like developing landscapes in high detail.He even learned to speak icelandic fluently within 7 days!!Imagine such a person would develop an interest in the old pioneers like Schuberger, Newman, Tesla and so on?Where we normal people fail to see any relevance or connection a guy like David would be able to literally see how all these inventions and ideas connect.He would be able to SEE the math behind it!Knowing how something was supposed to work and combining what is known through patents, drawing, videos or reports would enable such a person to make conclusions.For example where we might just see a nice pattern when we throw a stone into an undsturbed lake such a person would also already know and see the corresponding math the created the waves and why they were created exactly like this.Assuming David has no real interest in such things, then is it possible others already try?Sadly yes and even worse they do it with kids.Learning methods that are different can bring great results.For example while we use a calculator for big numbers some kids attend really strict and performance based classes to do this with an ancient abacus!After years of hard and often painful training they are able to it with a small abacus that only has a single row of discs.Shortly after they graduate to a virtual abacus - they only twitch their fingers in the same motions they would use on the real thing, but the disks and rods are all just visualised in their heads.That however is all meant as an improvement and the kids do it because they want to and not because they are forced to.Like learning to be a chess champion before even being old enough to work...In china however we have a very selective education program.Kids are not just trained slightly different to our kids but also closely monitored on their progress.As soon as one stands out for some skill it is subject to examination.Being well above average here means it is an opportunity for the kid and the parents - on paper at least.We in the western world would see it as a viscious circle though.Over the years china developed not only a better understanding of how these special kids brains actuall do their things but also how to create tests for this purpose.What looks like impossible or nonsense to most kids will trigger a scecific response and understand in those that are special.We would create something that allows parents to know early on where the kid has really good skills and what activities should be promoted.In china though the parents receive a nicer flat or some additional income while kids are send to a far away school.Again we would refer to such a school more as a boot camp.Discipline is at least on military levels, same is the punishment system.In most cases families are not reunited for many years, phone or even video calls only happen in the rare times when western TV crews are allowed a sneak peak.I just say: If a kid would see the parents often enough then it would not only know what to talk about but also be happy to talk to them - this however you won't see.It is like they talk to some distant uncle or such.What is really scary though is how these kids are trained to see their purpose and how important it is to be the best in what they do.Imagine you lost your kid at an early age and the only thing you got over the year was letters from the government saying how well it is doing and that you can be proud of it.Then it graduates and you are not even allowed to be there on that day...After that the kid is gone for good, you get a new flat and your proud kid supports you with some nice extra income.You don't get to know where it is working, what it is doing or if it might just be attending some university.By any standards these graduated kids can be seen as a great number of genius young people.Math, music, languages, science, you name it and they will have the experts aged below 20 for it.But what do they do once school is finnished and life starts?So far no reporter or family was able to figure it out.Means they don't appear in some high profile company, they don't start a successful business or teach at any public or private school.I leave it up to your imagination where thausands of kids find secret employment once they graduated....If, at least in theory we could be able to understand all these old technologies then why don't we at least try?Everyone has a goal, some desire a happy family and nice house, other need fame or just money to be happy.With that comes greed.You might have a really nice car but that does not mean you would give to some neighbour for a trip.Even if it just a nice rose garden, you might not want to share the views with anyone.This is true on all levels and we created a term for it "Need to know basis".If you just operate a press in a factory then you don't need to know when or what the next job is that comes for your press.You will know when it arrives and can check the documents attached.You don't need to know that your council is expanding and it is only seen as a courtesy to let you know on some notice board or in the local newspaper.And even our government does the same.What we do from the first days of our new baby we do on all other levels in the same way.What the baby does not need to know we won't tell or show.But we provide all the littly anklebiter needs to develop and be happy.Changing nappies, feeding, proving comfort when sick or having a nightmare.Later we teach language and other skills like walking.It goes on as you know...Humanity as a whole is like a little kid as well.If we would know all the little, dirty secrets then we would riot and go mad.Things that are of no concern are nothing we need to worry about, so we don't get to know them either.Knowing how build the latest fighter jets is seen as a thing that would give a possible enemy an advantage.Makes a lot of sense to everyone as these things might have to protect us one day.The questions that remain are:If humainty is a child, then how old are we now or when do we graduate?If there is a collection of secret and old knowledge then who owns and controls it?What would it take to force the release of all the things people actually created for a better world and not to be locked away?As funny as it might sound but one answer to all these questions would be to do nice orund trip in your Repulsine.Fly over ever single country in this world.Let their guided missle and what not chase you and once enough show then how quickly you can make a 180° turn to get behind them.So called unimportant countries might ignore you and the people only enjoy a nice show.Those powerful enough will fear you and think it was "the other side" showing their superiority.Once done with your round they all will have to realise there is a new power that is at the helm now: Knowledge and understanding.No more secrets, a repulsine for everyone who wants the plans to build one.A new world would start.Ever thought about that when wondering why all these "Aliens" we see in their ships in our skies never land to say hello ? ;)Even if they would be Aliens and not just some human pilot in some experimental craft:Shouldn't this demonstration of absolute power and control without any violence tell us something?The Repulsine need to come back to life to end all this UFO nonsense and Alien theories out there.You hear the sounds, see the ligh show and impossible abilities.And suddenly most if not all UFO sightings would have a common factor again.Just because the Repulsine is claimed to be lost and that it never actually worked despite film evidence showing the opposite does not mean there is no one using the technology.A working Repulsine available to everyone would also kill the doubt on so many other old inventors and "fringe" scientists.Science and physics would need to be redifined as would be able to find a lot of missing links.I know there is not only a lot of people out there trying to get what they can about the Repulsine but also that there are others who try to prevent this.You have a really easy time getting permission examine some old and histrically important artefact from a museum than getting just a hands on approch for what remains of the Repulsine in various places.Not even decent 3D scans will be allowed.Anything like just getting a tiny pipe cam inside is rejected with the excuse it could cause damage.If the thing is a hoax and never worked then why would it be so important to never touch or move it? ;)I recently got word that two of the remaining Repulsine "artefacts" were examined by the same group of "scientists".This happened in the late 80's and said scientists were claimed to have had acces to a collection of spare parts for the original Repulsine that was lost after the war.A private collector was also mentioned who denied all access but what he had in a secure storage facility appearently disappeared shortly after his refusal.Putting all the dots and hints together it would mean that someone in the late 80's was able to get literally everything that is left of the project in his hands.Those who claimed to have seen these scientists working on the Repulsine leftovers claim they used top notch technology to do so, including 3D scanners - and those were basically imossible to get back then for any uni out there...The laptops used were said to use touchscreens and were connected to all sorts of equippment.And they did it in almost total silence, like a group who studied a performance many times and knew exactly what do when and where without the need of many words.Professional in examining something unknown all all possible levels.I was unable to get any information on these scientist or who they worked for.But if you are one of them and readin this then I would love to hear from you!

Topic by Downunder35m   |  last reply

anyone got plan for a hand operated fly/platten press?

I need to make a small platten press for die cutting thin metal foils using cutting forms the foil is amaximum of a3 size

Question by trapper23   |  last reply

can i fly a very light aircraft with a small lawn mower engine?

I am trying to build an enclosed ultralight aircraft similar to the Cri-Cri made by michael colomban. I think i can make it around 100 or 150 pounds. I have an engine that is somewhere between five and ten horse power. i could possibly get another one of relatively the same amount of power. i have read about the DA-11 made by leeon davis that ran on an 18 hp engine, but is there a way to calculate weight vs. hp so i can be sure it will fly? (;  

Question by elliotstewfus   |  last reply

Arc gun?? Answered

Ok, I have made a Jacobs ladder from microwave parts and I THINK that in the middle is plasma soooo since plasma can be influenced by magnetic sis it possible to make it keep going past the trck and fly through the air using electromagnetics? Or make arcs fly through the air using any other microwave parts?

Question by DELETED_TheMythran   |  last reply

Lockheed Hybrid Blimp

Looks like it gets some lift from forward motion, some from propellers, and some from buoyancy.

Topic by ewilhelm   |  last reply

Robot goes on an airplane!

Robot and I went flying the other day, so we took a picture together. Whenever I wear it out in public, I hope somebody will come up to me and say that they're a member, too. Hasn't happened yet. I look a tad bit tired(/retarded)...since i'd been flying all day. EDIT: Yeah, I look really retarded in that picture...but at least Robot looks groovy!

Topic by Weissensteinburg   |  last reply

Piloted solar plane unveiled

Swiss adventurer Bertrand Piccard has unveiled a prototype of the solar-powered plane he hopes eventually to fly around the world.The vehicle, spanning 61m but weighing just 1,500kg, will undergo trials to prove it can fly through the night. The width of a jet airliner, but the weight of a family car, it is possibly the lightest plane (weight-for-size) ever to fly.When trials have finished - including a transatlantic flight planned for 2012 - the single-seat plane (designated "HB-SIA") should be able to circumnavigate the globe non-stop. Unfortunately, the pilot won't - at 20-25 knots, the flight should take three weeks, too long for a human to go without sleep. Instead, the flight is planned in five-day "hops", each ending with a change in pilot.Solar Impulse websiteBBC Story with video

Topic by Kiteman   |  last reply

How do I make a spinning wheel from this treadle sewing machine? Answered

It does need cleaning and painting, but the treadle and the fly wheel move smoothly backwards and forwards.  Thank you.

Question by jodi8727   |  last reply

Conceptual Car

If you could invent any kind of car, what would it look like? What makes this car different from one you could just buy? Can it turn into a boat? Can it roll like a ball? Is in powered by bycicle pedals? Can it fly? Describe your car.

Topic by MattGyver92   |  last reply

Rugged motors?

Does anybody know of a source of motors that are rugged enough to survive long-term* on the surf-line of a beach?  They wouldn't need to survive flying rocks, but saltwater and sand proof would be good. The plan is to use them in reverse, as generators, so DC is preferable. *In the first instance, "long term" means "more than half an hour".

Question by Kiteman   |  last reply

"Ride" by Michael Cooper - My Favorite Thing From the Maker Faire

This was, by far, my favorite thing at the 2008 Maker Faire. From Make's Description:Ride is a custom single rider helicopter with eight engines conceived & created by sculptor, Michael Cooper. It looks like more like a time machine invented by Dr. Seuss for George Jetson than anything you've seen in the air (or on land) recently.Michael Cooper is a sculptor who combines wood, metal, kinetics and mechanics with a twisted imagination resulting in beautiful, unique works of art that roll, spin, hop, contort and make people laugh while simultaneously scratching their heads. After 34 years as an art instructor at Foothill and DeAnza Colleges, he has now "retired" to his studio in Sebastopol where he spends his days devoted to sculpting, inventing and pushing the boundaries of form and function with a heavy does of humor.I know the pictures don't do it justice, and it's really hard to see everything, but take a long look and answer this question before you continue: Do you think it does/could fly? (Scroll down below the line and look at the pictures.)... did you look at the pictures first?There are so many reasons why it can't fly that I won't bother to discuss them here. However, the truly fascinating thing I liked so much was standing around Ride and listening to the conversations, and particularly watching its creator stage-manage the discussion. Lots of people wanted to discuss why they thought it could or couldn't fly - remember that this was the Maker Faire, so lots people here were builders or tinkerers (or at least thought of themselves as such). There were half-hour long heated debates about the tiniest of minutiae -- fuel line diameters and spiral exhaust ports, for example.Periodically, someone would gain the courage to think about the system as a whole and would approach the creator to ask, "So it flies, right?" He'd answer truthfully enough by saying, "Well, it's not done yet," and then launch into a detail, like the difficulty in synchronizing 8 engines; this would get the whole group rolling again. Later Saturday evening, when most of the kids had gone home and everyone else was outside listening to a band, a group of particularly crotchety old tinkerer-types were showing off their smarts and trying to outwit each other. After one onlooker had finished with his unnecessarily loud pronouncement of "based on my extensive experience building 1/6th-scale steam locomotive engines, I absolutely sure it can fly," another of the group tentatively approached the creator, and asked the inevitable question.Michael Cooper took his cue, dodged, and redirected into a discussion of how the transmission linking the 8 engines to the propellor was open, and the first time he ran it, he was probably going to get covered in grease. I burst out laughing.After they were all rolling again on how many cubic feet of compressed air the vehicle should optimally carry for its four pneumatic lifter feet, I quietly asked Michael how many people "got it" and how many people asked if it could fly. He confided that I was very much in the minority. Further, he got a big kick out of removing his name tag, and listening in to the can-it-fly conversations, too.I really hope I get a change one day to work with Michael Cooper to design and build a gorgeous Ride-like vehicle for me, so I get the chance to answer the question, "So, does it really fly?"

Topic by ewilhelm   |  last reply

Stair Ride

I had an idea about making going downstairs fun. You grab two handles, which are connected to a frame on the ceiling. As you move/fly downstairs, the handles scroll along the frame quickly, thus making the simple process of going downstairs fun. :) Absurd or do-able? Does anyone know how to make such a thing? 

Topic by yellowcat429   |  last reply

GEN H-4 Mini Personal Helicopter

The GEN H-4 personal helicopter weighs 70 kg, carries 220 kg total, has 40 hp of 2-stroke power, counter-rotating props, and costs $35 K. Check out what it takes to put together:, get a flying motorcycle from Butterfly Gyroplane:

Topic by ewilhelm   |  last reply

Hoverbike takes off

Australian Christopher Malloy has built what seems to be a working hoverbike.  Built in his Sydney garage, with a custom carbon-fibre frame and a BMW engine, the machine is being touted as "Star Wars Speeder bike Mk1". Currently restricted to tethered flights of a few inches altitude, Malloy claims the bike feels stable, and is just waiting permission to undertake untethered tests. 'I am still ground testing at the moment only because I'm not 100 per cent sure what will happen so the straps are there to cover the unknown. I haven't had the pleasure of flying round the countryside yet. 'It is quite stable and doesn't want to tip over but if something unplanned happened during testing I wouldn't want to break the prototype. 'The Hoverbike was built with safety in mind so at least three components have to fail before you might have a serious airborne failure. 'There are also two explosive parachutes attached to the airframe and of course the rider could choose to wear their own parachute too. He predicts: 10,000ft altitude. 100mph 92 mile, 45 minute flight on one tank £45,000 pricetag The hoverbike should also have "ultralight" status - at only 270kg, under US regulations, no pilot's license would be required.  Since it has no driven wheels, it shouldn't require a road license either...!  Malloy is a former helicopter pilot, and says those skills are helpful when flying the hoverbike, but also says that the unique craft ultimately needs no more skill to fly than a motorbike, with speed and direction being controlled by a mixture of throttle and body-posture. As soon as I win the Lottery, I know who is going to get a knock at the door... Via Daily Mail

Topic by Kiteman   |  last reply

Kite-powered ship sets sail.

German container ship MS Beluga SkySails has set sail for Venezuela from Germany, towed in part by 160 square metres of parafoil.The kite is flown at an altitude of around 200m (depending on exact wind conditions), and is expected to save nearly $1600 in fuel costs every day.The kite is computer-controlled, flying in a constant figure-eight to maintain traction.If this trial is successful, kites of up to 5000m2 are planned for future trips.BBC StorySkySails site

Topic by Kiteman   |  last reply

The Christmas Special 2010. [Paper airplane]

In this special, you will make a paper airplane that are: Tough Water Proof Ice Proof Snow Proof Mud Proof Made out of Foil Strong A glider Fire Proof [Option] paper airplane. To enter this, just put a picture of it outside in the snow or inside and put some bit of comment about it as well also put your paper airplane instrutable web address. Make sure it's flys, glides and works for lasting months or more!

Topic by wat. 


TITAN the High Powered Minature Water RocketOk, yeah sure. What the hell is that then?I'ble to follow...If someone can find me a smaller one, i'll beat it.It stands 7 inches high.TITAN flys well over 70 foot and has a alloy chamber capable of withstanding over 250 PSI.Oh how I love compressed air!Don't worry Poseidon is still in the making and will be posted for the "Keep the bottle" contest. There is also another full bore, open throat 5 x 600 ml rocket to come.

Topic by Lftndbt 

Bolt snapped off in flywheel, how to remove it?

Hi everyone. I was replacing the pressure plate in a nissan navara with a td27 engine. One of the bolts that holds the pressure plate to the flywheel broke. So we drilled a hole and used a easyout. However the drill bit wandered so the hole touches the side of the thread. As a result the easyout wont work. The hole barley scrapes the side so the thread only looks slightly damaged, but ok. Have also tryed getting a punch on the edge but that wont work either. Any ideas on how to remove it?

Question by David97   |  last reply

Did you see a UFO or not?

I could not sleep so I went for a little bike ride to get some fresh air and burn unwanted kalories. To my surprise one really bright "star" began to move and because it was night my conclusion was a plane at low altitude or making a turn. After a while however it looked more like this "light" is still coming towards me and if you know planes this would mean it should have crashed already - which it did not. But it definately came closer and once almost over me I also realise it does not move in a straight line, more in a slight zick-zack movement. Biggest surprise was the shape I could make out, definately no plane that I know of! To me it looked like a cigar shape which was much wider in diameter on one end. Can't say front or back as the flight patter did not incate anything like this. Any directional changes happened without the shape changing direction, if it moved to the right than without turning - it just "slided" while the long shape kept pointing in the same direction as before. Took about 10 pics on my phone but even after checking on the computer there is only black on a black background, not even a single star visible :( Just to get me right here - I do believe in other planets out there having intelligent live but I do not think intelligent "creatures" from outer space would come to visit us. The term UFO means unidentified flying object and nothing else was there that I saw - just something that makes no sense in terms of following known laws of physics flying through the night sky. Would not even bother to write about it if any of what I saw would make sense to me. There was no sound, which was really strange. IMHO the craft was at an altitude between 1000 and 3000m not higher. It also seemed the light I thought came from a plane was coming directly from the fuselage or hull and not a lamp, looked like the outer surface was glowing. But seeing something moving quite fast over your head with no sound at all is just weird.... The zick zack movement was strange too but when the craft took off to disappear into the night it was like instand accelleration. Within an instand the light went really bright and was gone over the horizon - never seen anything move that fast! I know there are lots of secret military aircrafts out there, same for people playing with drones but this was much bigger, would say at least 400m long. Even if the altitude would have been much lower in reality than what I thought it would have been huge - and totally silent. Spent the last hour or so checking some videos on Youtube but nothing really matched what I saw. So my question(s): Did you ever see something moving with impossible speeds, making impossible turns or accelerating like no tomorrow in the sky? And if so: Did it look like an oversized cigar, bigger on one end and with a "glowing body"? Do you know of any prototype craft being the size of at least two Airbusses in lenght that can fly without making any noise at all? Disclaimer: I do realise what sort of "crap" I am writing here. I also acknowledge that I don't know everything that can fly. I do not think that I saw an UFO in terms of being "out of this world". Yes, I know my level of insanity ;) I do not claim to have seen or being abducted by aliens either ;) And no, I have neither been blind drunk nor on drugs when I saw this ;)

Topic by Downunder35m   |  last reply


So, i'm a star wars fan for some time now and I've always wanted to start on a dream project, i wanted to create a real life Star Wars Speeder, having the technology that we have right now i think it's possible, now the thing is, i need to find a motor(s) big enough to lift a 185lbs guy off the floor, i don't really want it to fly like an airplane but more like hover a few feet off the ground, maybe 2 or 3 feet and make it move forward... for forward movement i'm thinking of the concept of thrust vectoring. i'm still on the planning/drawing stages of it... any suggestions from the experts??? 

Topic by somedumbguy1274   |  last reply

High Altitude Balloon

Hello guys, I have recently started working on a high altitude balloon project. I am planing on making a balloon that will go up to 100k ft and while it is travailing up to that altitude it will be snapping pictures and taking videos of the sky.  I am publishing all the updates related to this project on a project dedicated website . However after i am done i will be also making a very deatailed instructable on it so others may fallow in my foot steps. I just wanted to share my project with the instructables community, L4I

Topic by looking4ideas   |  last reply

How to safely store powerful rare earth magnets?

I have several very powerful rare earth magnets that I use in a physics laboratory to construct DC motors. Accidents happen frequently, especially when taking out and storing the magnets.  Right now I just use some plastic separators in between each one, but even then the magnets tend to fly off and grab onto another, usually taking with them some skin. I've been thinking of making a box to hold them. Can anyone think of a good design or materials? Thank  you. PS. Yes, I've asked my class to come up with a method. Nothing great so far  :)

Question by blakeredfield   |  last reply

Is your Bottom made out of Iron? Ever taken a Serious motorbike trip? Daytona? Sturgis? The Big Easy?

Ok, a friend (one of our church members) has asked me to come visit. He's got a contract flying Choppers and Cropdusters for the next two months. We used to eat breakfast together about three times a week when he was in town, and he said if I'll ride up there, he's buying. Problem is, he's 500 miles away. I can't afford to drive the Tahoe, and I don't trust my crackerbox (18 year old Mazda). I think I'm going to take the Goldwing. I've never really ridden more than about 200 miles in a day, but I'll only have about 3 days to make this voyage (1000 miles round trip). What do you think? Is it do-able for a sleep deprived, rapidly-aging, and slightly-overweight desk-jockey?

Topic by skunkbait   |  last reply

Adhering joints for intricate wire sculpture?

I would like to make a wire sculpture that is as intricate as I possibly can make it.  I want to use very small gauge wire (don't really care what material), cut small pieces and connect them together.  For a visual, I did a (sloppy) sketch of the idea and attached the photo, and it would continue to expand from there.  There will be multiple joints close to each other, done one at a time.  I want to create in on the fly, I will not have any pre-formed pattern.  I've been looking at soldering, brazing, welding and I don't see anything that would fit perfectly for what I want to do.  I believe the heat from the next joint would destroy any previous joints.  The idea of simply zapping a joint and quickly moving on appeals to me, but I don't mind being more patient in order to do it right.  Are there any techniques that I’m missing?  Anybody have any ideas?  Maybe I’ll just use superglue…

Question by imtheraddest   |  last reply

Pedal-powered airship gets half way...

A French amateur pilot's attempt to be the first to cross the channel on a pedal-propelled airship has failed.Stephane Rousson, 39, from Nice, took off from Hythe on the Kent coast at about 0800 BST and was half-way to the French coast by 1300 BST.But he was hampered by a change in the wind direction and called off the trip 11 miles from Wissant in France.Mr Rousson said: "I'm not disappointed. I feel happy because it had nothing to do with any technical failure."During the challenge, Mr Rousson was suspended underneath the balloon envelope in a carbon fibre gondola, powering the two propellers with his feet using a bicycle-like contraption. The most amusing thing about the whole trip is the safety system:Just in case Rousson found himself flying irretrievably high, he hung an open penknife from the gondola framework, with the intention of popping the balloon and heading for a splashdown.Sorry, that's the second most amusing thing. The most amusing thing is the pilot's childhood inspiration - ET.BBC article

Topic by Kiteman   |  last reply

Rocket Cars--Brought to you by Schamadeke's Physics Class

HI, INSTRUCTABLES. So the story is, our class is doing an experiment to see if we can log the acceleration of matchbox cars with C or B model rocket engines. (Estes, if anyone's curious about the brand.) The experiment  went... Err, well. We destroyed two photogates. Our setup is as follows: >4.8m 2x4s, with metal plates at both ends. >20-or 22-guage steel wire, running between holes in the metal plates, tied to both ends. >Photogates at more-or-less 1m intervals. >ROCKET HOT WHEELS. The experiment went over more or less as planned. We had one car's frame come loose of its body and fly away with the rocket, one work fine except for actually hitting every photogate it was supposed to pass through, and on several other runs the wire jumped up and down so much that it triggered the gates all over the place. With these difficulties in mind, we would like to ask Instructables' advice on the matter. Does the incredibly talented community of Instructables' little corner of the Interblag have any advice for us? ... Dammit, I lost the game. Anyway, go on. Oh, and that last picture contains the car that ran off the track.

Topic by ssonicblue   |  last reply

Hi Every one. My question is what can i do to add a self start & alternator for battery charging to 1hp gasoline engine

As i said i want to add a self start to 1 hp petrol/kerosene engine . i know this is quite difficult but i am a tech lover & i am working as maintenance in-charge in hotel. The main reason behind this question is we have small business of sugar cane juice in our town since last 20 years(almost that time when i was 4 years) which is set up in a small go i want make some smart changes in it. So the mechanism which is used for crushing cane is powered by that engine through belt pulley drive( as everybody knows). To start the engine we have to pull the fly wheels of sugar cane machine which very hard, difficult & arm braking procedure for my mom, grand ma & younger brother. So i want make it more user friendly & efficient which will reduce pain, tiredness & increase human work efficiency. I hope the description is enough to describe my concern.I have attached some images of machine. Please guide what & how to do. All your replies will be appreciated. Mail :- Thanks in advance.    

Question by Aziz7264   |  last reply

How clouds act as an air pump to suck in air. Not how you think they do!

I have been thinking a long time about the biotic pump theory but I still don't understand it.  The math is too hard for me.   BUT it got me to thinking.   It is a point of major dispute in the meteorological world.   Does condensation cause low pressure?  2 russian nuclear physicists say yes,  almost everyone else says no!   So,  I thought and thought and thought.  Now I think I have a simple enough explanation And yes, they may not necessarily cause low pressure under the cloud (probably do)  but they definitely suck in air from elsewhere.  Imagine a fleet of huge doughnut shaped dirigible airships. They are sitting at 10,000 ft just floating there.   Now the commander tells everyone that they must now fly at 5000 ft.   So they turn on their propellers (in the hole in the doughnut) and drop down to 5000 ft by propelling air up  through the hole.   Now staying at 5000 ft is achieved by running the propellers at just fast enough.  So at 5000 ft they are pumping air from under the doughnuts to above them.   Now imagine a cumulus cloud.  Even though it is not fixed in size or shape and it does not have a propeller,  it is doing the exact same thing.  Air is being pumped up the middle and the clouds are sitting lower in the sky than they "should",  because they are sending that column of air up into the sky.   Here is my video to explain it visually.

Topic by gaiatechnician   |  last reply

Spring-loaded cannon

My friend and I are considering building a spring loaded cannon. The idea right now is to have a pvc pipe for the cannon chamber, and pvc pipes flanking it to hold springs in parallel. A cross-bar will go through all 3 pipes through slits cut long ways in the pipe. The springs will be attached to some point forward in the flanking pipes and to the cross bar, which will be used to pull the springs back and, once released, will launch the dart/ball in the center tube. My research so far - the spring rates of springs loaded in parallel are additive. With 5x 10-in*lb springs, we can produce 667 newtons of force when pulled back 3 inches (springs in question are 5.5 in long) . That will produce an acceleration of 303 m*s^2 on a 1 lb (2.2 kg) albeit for only a fraction of a second.;=industrial&qid;=1257718057&sr;=1-1 These are the springs we're looking at. We'll need to use an even number of springs, so either 4 or 6 (or 8 or 10). So, what do you guys think? Practical? Will we be able to get any distance? Any suggestions? A ROUGH picture is shown below. === are spring tubes, | are handles, and left arrows indicate direction in which springs will be stretched, and the right arrow is a dart flying out of the center launch tube. <----| ===== XXXXXXXXX     ------> ===== <----|

Topic by chs9   |  last reply

Recumbent cycle: &quot;blue sky&quot; design query

I am not one of nature's cyclists. I didn't actually learn properly until I was in my twenties. My bike is very old, very rusty and very, very heavy.However, I feel that I "ought" to cycle more, for shopping trips and the like. I quite like the idea of switching to a recumbent, but they are expensive (current available funds: zero).So, I'm playing with the idea of rebuilding my mountain bike into a recumbent (and learning how to weld on the fly?).In the sketch below;The black section is the back of the old bike, turned upside down.The blue section is the front of the donor bike.The red part would need fabricating somehow.I haven't thought properly about steering mechanisms, but probably under the seat, via cables to arms welded to the forks of the will-be-the-back wheel.Would the bike, as I have sketched it, in principle, work?I'm bothered about stability, especially at take-off and landing. Am I worrying unnecessarily? I have access to a second donor cycle. Is there any mileage thinking about "doubling up" the blue section, to make a trike? Not massively wide, but I could add luggage space, or an extra rear-facing chair-style seat.Brakes: before I cut up the bikes, am I right in thinking that I just remove the cables and levers from the handle-bars and add them to the under-seat steering?Gears: the donor bike is a mountain bike, but I never used all the gears anyway. This area is pretty flat - can I get away without any gears?Coasting: although the back of the donor bike ends up upside-down, it is still turning the same way, so I can still coast OK.I'm sure I've missed something obvious...Anyway, even though I've not decided to do this for certain, I'd appreciate any comments or thoughts.

Topic by Kiteman   |  last reply

Black Holes aren’t Black they are Gray?

Ok so 40 years ago Stephen Hawking came up with the theory of Black holes and today they are not black but gray. It turns out that the black holes Hawking wrote about in 1974 — those places in the space-time continuum that can devour galaxies and even trap light forever — may not exist in the way that he proposed decades ago. So I read the paper. I found it a bit dry compared to A Brief History of Time but that is the life of a paper. I have always believed a theory is just that and no more, prone to evolve or be disproved with the advent of new theories and facts. After all it is just a theory and not a fact even though many of these theories enable us to the most amazing things. Which reminds me of a joke. A Canadian fisherman was down south fly fishing with an American fisherman that happen to be a marine biologist. Soon the Canadian fisherman caught a one pound brook trout and stated it was just a baby and threw it back. The American marine biologist not objecting to catch and release, objected to the Canadian calling a one pound Salvelinus fontinalis a baby. He explained to the Canadian fisherman that the Salvelinus fontinalis is genetically unable to grow larger than one pound. The Canadian fisherman retorted I catch five pounders in the Boyne River all the time and that was just a baby where he comes from. The American marine biologist objected to the Canadian calling a one pound Salvelinus fontinalis a baby. Again he explained to the Canadian fisherman that the Salvelinus fontinalis is genetically unable to grow larger than one pound. Not wanting to argue the Canadian fisherman let the subject lye and spent the rest of the day fishing throwing their catch back. At the end of the day they exchanged addresses and parted friends. A month later the American marine biologist received a parcel in the mail in it was a frozen five pound brook trout, distraught he began to write the Canadian fisherman a letter. “Dear Mr. Fuddel Duddel Thank you for the five pound specimen of the Salvelinus fontinalis, and thank you very much for ruining perfectly good science with a fact. Sincerely John Doe”

Topic by Josehf Murchison 

Converting gravitational potential energy into air pressure to launch a projectile?

Hello my name is Aaron! I am a high school senior from northeastern Kentucky designing a pneumatic system of sorts for a science competition and need some help. I will be building a device that converts gravitational potential energy, from a falling mass, into air pressure (or possibly the movement of air depending on the design) to launch a projectile a specific distance (max distance needed is 8.25 m). What I am thinking about doing is using one double action pneumatic cylinder (DAPC) as a bellow in which a falling mass (max 3.500 kg at a max 90 cm) would strike its piston shaft, creating positive pressure within the system. With that positive pressure another DAPC’s piston would simultaneously strike our projectile sending it airborne in theory. Below there is an illustration of my idea, sorry about the poor quality. So what I need help determining is would this design work before I start buying parts? If so what approximate sizes should the two cylinders be and should they be different sizes to maximize the force exerted on the projectile? If you have any other ideas concerning the design or any questions about the project PLEASE feel free to share!!! Below are some of the design rules that pertain to this project along with some notes in italics about them. Thank you very much for your time in advance! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Description:    -Prior to competition, teams will design, construct, and calibrate a single device capable of launching projectiles into a target and collect data regarding device parameters and performance. Design Constraints:    -The launching force must be entirely supplied by the gravitational potential energy from a falling mass less than or equal to 3.500 kg. Any device part whose potential energy decreases and provides launch energy is considered part of the mass. The mass may consist of multiple discrete parts, which together count as the total mass.    -During each launch, the gravitational potential energy must be converted to air pressure or air movement, which is then used to launch the projectile, either directly (e.g., pop gun style, etc.) or indirectly (e.g., using a pneumatic cylinder to swing an arm, etc.) All device air chambers must start at ambient air pressure and must automatically return to ambient air pressure.    -The launching device (would look similar to this with the adjustable angle to accommodate different ranges), including the projectile and all components, must fit within a 75.0 cm x 75.0 cm x 1.00 m box in ready-to-launch configuration, in any orientation chosen by the team. Weights used to stabilize the device must be within the box.    -The triggering device (would look something like this except elevated with a mass suspended ready to be released) in not considered part of the device and must not contribute energy to the launch. It must extend out of the launch area, allow for the competitors to remain at least 1.00 m away from the launch area, and does not need to return to the launch area after launch. The triggering device must not pose a danger to anyone due to flying parts or excessive movement outside the launch area.    -Teams must provide unmodified tennis, racquet, ping pong, and/or plastic practice golf balls to be used as projectiles. Teams may change projectiles for each launch.    -The launching device must be designed and operated in such a way to not damage or alter the floor.    -Electrical components are not allowed as part of the device or triggering device. The Competition:    -Two targets, designated by small marks on tape on the floor or panels lying on the floor, must be placed in front of and centered on an imaginary line parallel to the launch direction that bisects the launch are. Supervisors are encouraged to place sand, cat litter, or similar substance in the area around the targets to help indicate landing spots.    -The targets must be placed in front of the launch area at distances between 2.00 m and 8.00 m (in intervals of 10 cm). A distance of at least 2.00 m must separate the targets. Target distances must not be announced until after impound is over and must be the same for all teams. Room ceiling height should be considered when setting the distances.

Question by ahoback   |  last reply

Fastest you have ever been.

I have a car, but no permit or license. One day, my brother told me to bring him something while he was at work. I was driving down the street going the speed limit or a little over and under. I turned onto the main road Speed limit, 50mph, and just went 50 or so the whole way. and when i got back onto the highway, this guy is following me to my bumper basically, so in the non passing zone just getting on i am going about 25mph, as you are getting on it is 35mph limit, as soon as it reaches 50mph, i jam the gas, it goes into passing gear and in no time i am doing 80mph. and on an S-curve still doing 80. On the stretch i am doing about 60mph, and decided i should just stick to the speed limit. Got a story? A Nice Morning Drive It was a fine morning in March 1982. The warm weather and clear sky gave promise of an early spring. Buzz had arisen early that morning, impatiently eaten breakfast and gone to the garage. Opening the door, he saw the sunshine bounce off the gleaming hood of his 15-year-old MGB roadster. After carefully checking the fluid levels, tire pressures and ignition wires, Buzz slid behind the wheel and cranked the engine, which immediately fired to life. He thought happily of the next few hours he would spend with the car, but his happiness was clouded - it was not as easy as it used to be. A dozen years ago things had begun changing. First there were a few modest safety and emission improvements required on new cars; gradually these became more comprehensive. The governmental requirements reached an adequate level, but they didn't stop; they continued and became more and more stringent. Now there were very few of the older models left, through natural deterioration and . . . other reasons. The MG was warmed up now and Buzz left the garage, hoping that this early in the morning there would be no trouble. He kept an eye on the instruments as he made his way down into the valley. The valley roads were no longer used very much: the small farms were all owned by doctors and the roads were somewhat narrow for the MSVs (Modern Safety Vehicles). The safety crusade had been well done at first. The few harebrained schemes were quickly ruled out and a sense of rationality developed. But in the late Seventies, with no major wars, cancer cured and social welfare straightened out, the politicians needed a new cause and once again they turned toward the automobile. The regulations concerning safety became tougher. Cars became larger, heavier, less efficient. They consumed gasoline so voraciously that the United States had had to become a major ally with the Arabian countries. The new cars were hard to stop or maneuver quickly, but they would save your life (usually) in a 50-mph crash. With 200 million cars on the road, however, few people ever drove that fast anymore. Buzz zipped quickly to the valley floor, dodging the frequent potholes which had developed from neglect of the seldom-used roads. The engine sounded spot-on and the entire car had a tight, good feeling about it. He negotiated several quick S-curves and reached 6000 in third gear before backing off for the next turn. He didn't worry about the police down here. No, not the cops . . . Despite the extent of the safety program, it was essentially a good idea. But unforeseen complications had arisen. People became accustomed to cars which went undamaged in 10-mph collisions. They gave even less thought than before to the possibility of being injured in a crash. As a result, they tended to worry less about clearances and rights-of-way, so that the accident rate went up a steady six percent every year. But the damages and injuries actually decreased, so the government was happy, the insurance industry was happy and most of the car owners were happy. Most of the car owners - the owners of the non-MSV cars - were kept busy dodging the less careful MSV drivers, and the result of this mismatch left very few of the older cars in existence. If they weren't crushed between two 6000-pound sleds on the highway they were quietly priced into the junkyard by the insurance peddlers. And worst of all, they became targets . . . Buzz was well into his act now, speeding through the twisting valley roads with all the skill he could muster, to the extent that he had forgotten his earlier worries. Where the road was unbroken he would power around the turns in well controlled oversteer, and where the sections were potholed he saw them as devious chicanes to be mastered. He left the ground briefly going over one of the old wooden bridges and later ascertained that the MG would still hit 110 on the long stretch between the old Hanlin and Grove farms. He was just beginning to wind down when he saw it, there in his mirror, a late-model MSV with hand-painted designs covering most of its body (one of the few modifications allowed on post-1980 cars). Buzz hoped it was a tourist or a wayward driver who got lost looking for a gas station. But now the MSV driver had spotted the MG, and with a whoosh of a well muffled, well cleansed exhaust he started the chase . . . It hadn't taken long for the less responsible element among drivers to discover that their new MSVs could inflict great damage on an older car and go unscathed themselves. As a result some drivers would go looking for the older cars in secluded areas, bounce them off the road or into a bridge abutment, and then speed off undamaged, relieved of whatever frustrations cause this kind of behavior. Police seldom patrolled these out-of-the-way places, their attentions being required more urgently elsewhere, and so it became a great sport for some drivers. Buzz wasn't too worried yet. This had happened a few times before, and unless the MSV driver was an exceptionally good one, the MG could be called upon to elude the other driver without too much difficulty. Yet something bothered him about this gaudy MSV in his mirror, but what was it? Planning carefully, Buzz let the other driver catch up to within a dozen yards or so, and then suddenly shot off down a road to the right. The MSV driver stood on his brakes, skidding 400 feet down the road, made a lumbering U-turn and set off once again after the roadster. The MG had gained a quarter mile in this manner and Buzz was thankful for the radial tires and front and rear anti-roll bars he had put on the car a few years back. He was flying along the twisting road, downshifting, cornering, accelerating and all the while planning his route ahead. He was confident that if he couldn't outrun the MSV then he could at least hold it off for another hour or more, at which time the MSV would be quite low on gas. But what was it that kept bothering him about the other car? They reached a straight section of the road and Buzz opened it up all the way and held it. The MSV was quite a way back but not so far that Buzz couldn't distinguish the tall antenna standing up from the back bumper. Antenna! Not police, but perhaps a Citizen's Band radio in the MSV? He quaked slightly and hoped it was not. The straight stretch was coming to an end now and Buzz put off braking to the last fraction of a second and then sped through a 75-mph right-hander, gaining ten more yards on the MSV. But less than a quarter mile ahead another huge MSV was slowly pulling across the road and to a stop. It was a CB set. The other driver had a cohort in the chase. Now Buzz was in trouble. He stayed on the gas until within a few hundred feet when he banked hard and feinted passing to the left. The MSV crawled in that direction and Buzz slipped by on the right, bouncing heavily over a stone on the shoulder. The two MSVs set off in hot pursuit, almost colliding in the process. Buzz turned right at the first crossroad and then made a quick left, hoping to be out of sight of his pursuers, and in fact he traveled several minutes before spotting one of them on the main road parallel to his lane. At the same time the other appeared in the mirror from around the last comer. By now they were beginning to climb the hills on the far side of the valley and Buzz pressed on for all he was worth, praying that the straining engine would stand up. He lost track of one MSV when the main road turned away, but could see the other one behind him on occasion. Climbing the old Monument Road, Buzz hoped to have time to get over the top and down the old dirt road to the right, which would be too narrow for his pursuers. Climbing, straining, the water temperature rising, using the entire road, flailing the shift lever back and forth from 3rd to 4th, not touching the brakes but scrubbing off the necessary speed in the corners, reaching the peak of the mountain where the lane to the old fire tower went off to the left . . . but coming up the other side of the hill was the second MSV he had lost track of! No time to get to his dirt road. He made a panicked turn left onto the fire tower road but spun on some loose gravel and struck a tree a glancing blow with his right fender. He came to a stop on the opposite side of the road. the engine stalled. Hurriedly he pushed the starter while the overheated engine slowly came back into life. He engaged 1st gear and sped off up the road, just as the first MSV turned the corner. Dazed though he was, Buzz had the advantage of a very narrow road lined on both sides with trees, and he made the most of it. The road twisted constantly and he stayed in 2nd with the engine between 5000 and 5500. The crash hadn't seemed to hurt anything and he was pulling away from the MSV. But to where? It hit him suddenly that the road dead-ended at the fire tower, no place to go but back . . . Still he pushed on and at the top of the hill drove quickly to the far end of the clearing, turned the MG around and waited. The first MSV came flying into the clearing and aimed itself at the sitting MG. Buzz grabbed reverse gear, backed up slightly to feint, stopped, and then backed up at full speed. The MSV, expecting the MG to change direction, veered the wrong way and slid to a stop up against a tree. Buzz was off again, down the fire tower road, and the undamaged MSV set off in pursuit. Buzz's predicament was unenviable. He was going full tilt down the twisting blacktop with a solid MSV coming up at him. and an equally solid MSV coming down after him. On he went, however, braking hard before each turn and then accelerating back up to 45 in between. Coming down to a particularly tight turn, he saw the MSV coming around it from the other direction and stood on the brakes. The sudden extreme pressure in the brake lines was too much for the rear brake line which had been twisted somewhat in his spin, and it broke, robbing Buzz of his brakes. In sheer desperation he pulled the handbrake as tightly as it would go and rammed the gear lever into 1st, popping the clutch as he did so. The back end locked solid and broke away, spinning him off the side of the road and miraculously into some bushes, which brought the car to a halt. As he was collecting his senses, Buzz saw the two MSVs, unable to stop in time, ram each other head on at over 40 mph. It was a long time before Buzz had the MG rebuilt to its original pristine condition of before the chase. It was an even longer time before he went back into the valley for a drive. Now it was only in the very early hours of the day when most people were still sleeping off the effects of the good life. And when he saw in the papers that the government would soon be requiring cars to be capable of withstanding 75-mph headon collisions, he stopped driving the MG altogether. Written by: Richard Foster

Topic by Yerboogieman   |  last reply

The Moon - What do we really know and what is possible?

If we look up then seeing the moon is the most normal thing to us there is in the sky.But did you ever wonder how it actually got there? ;)Theories are out there by the lot, including those from real scientists.One of the most common is that it all started by catching the thing and that all was perfect at the time.Over time the orbit then stabilized.Other theories include that formed when our planet formed..What they all lack is what is common and true for all other moond out there: These rotate.According to science an object the size of our moon would need to rotate to maintain a stable orbit.No one told this to our moon, so it just stays in a stable orbit anyway.The only other accepted theory, that funny enough never mentioned OUR moon, is that the center of mass must be facing the orbiting planet.Now theories can run and wild if you let schientifically people loose on a subject.Official NASA data obtained by monitoring equippment on the moon supports the theory of the center of gravity.You see, sesmometers recorded "moon quakes" but also the impact of burnt rocket stages - the later were dropped on purpose.At first everyone agreed the equippment must be faulty but going through it again and again confirmed all works fine.So what got them so exited that was never officially made public?You see, every thing with suffient mass will create a sesmic shock on impact.On earth we can located the source of an earthquake or even explosion quite accurately.Same happened on the moon only with one difference to earth.Every impact caused a ringing effect.Like a bell, the soundwaves and shockwaves traveled through the moon for very long times.An early explanation was that the moon is made from really hard rock or that it might even have a metal core.This was rendered useless once the actual mass was calculated and it turned out the moon would rip us apart while spinning around us.The term "hollow moon" was born.Another interesting thing happens when you try to track down what equippment was left on the moon during which specific mission.Everything up there must have been installed at some stage.For some things though it seems there is no record when or where exactly something was left up there.Then there is the thing with the interviews...If you check the fuzz about the first moon landing then back then you couldn't help yourself but got exited as well.None of the three astronauts however appeared to be at least a little bit exited about going where no man has gone before.Somehow like visiting Iceland for the first time only to realise someone was there before you already.But it was the moon, not some easy to reach island...And while up there we did not see any exitement either, like fully staged and planned ahead.Like a not so 100% school rehersal.Claims that it was a fake and actually filmed in some studio have been verified to be false - they really were up there.After they came back two went silent and refused any interviews about the moon.All three though never spoke about anything we did not see on "live TV"...All the missing segments, the drop outs, the silence during communications...The money...Apart from the Pentagon making a disappearing act of 6Billion US, the already planned and staged moon missions were cancelled with no valid reason at all.One mission already ready to go to the launch pad, crew fully trained and briefed.Two more ready for final assembly.Official reason back then was "We have been there, it is time to explore new things."Almost the same statement was made by Obama a few weeks after he claimed "We will go up there again!".If you take away the costs for the abandoned missions then the money blown up to the moon has a huge difference to what can be tracked back.The lost sum equals out to about 8 more moon missions plus tons of state of the art equippment (back at the time it was state of the art).If you add what the Pentagon lost we are close to 15 more missions.The now...A few years back a lot of previously declared top secret documents have been released to the public.What was a good idea however turned out to be a bit too much.Quite a few documents were included that provide missing links to "incidents, missions, money spent"...Within these piles were documents indicating that space missions of the same extend as the much later moon missions were made.Same rockets, similar crafts, same requirements for water, food and oxygen, some though with just payloads of oxygen and water.Mind you though the documents speak from proposed options and not planned missions.And none of them had any exploration within it, just deliveries if you don't mind the comparison.Those documents about the ringing of the moon and how this would impact on the things we assumed to know about the moon were in there as well.What is really interesting though is what came back from the moon.None of it actually indicate that there is suffient ressources up there to justify mining.Funny enough exactly is planned on a military style.Seems fair enough considering the military can provide the best people for such a hard job.Some normal miner might have no problems getting under ground every day but knowing he is on the moon and might never make it back is another.With all the probing done that we know of you would assume the planned mining operations would be in an area rich in minerals, metals or at least something to generate fuel or oxygen.But no, it is planned to happen "on the dark side" and in an area that appearently was never explored in other ways then taking a few blurry pics while flying around the moon.However, both Russia and China claim to have been very close to this area long before details about the mining became public.And that brings us back to the past and what astromauts stated or to be precise refused to confirm or deny.In some videos we can see movements in the background.In several adio stream we hear the comments to what happens in the videos.If there is light moving around then it does not matter that is blue.You just wonder what it is and where it might have come from.Imagine the surprise if then in other videos you hear things like that the lights are back or that steam comes out of the moon like a gysir.There were official explanations for the first sightings made by the normal people when watching those videos on the NASA websites.Soon after the videos disappeared from the servers.Copies were made by the curious and quite a few videos were identified later to have contained "sightings" as well.Some even show what appears to flying machines with great manouverbilities.And if you take the high point of the happenings then it is also the same time when it was decided that we actually have no real interest in the moon.Astromauts later denied to have ever made any comments like that they are being followed or "escorted" by another craft.And the same Astromauts many years later still refuse to deny or confirm that what we could see and hear during their mission videos actually happened.Don't get me wrong but if the deny it then it just means we all saw some refections or such things.If the confirm it then we know something was out there with them.Doing neither usually means what we saw is ture enough to deny any knowledge about more details.Why then the sudden interest?Trump wants to get up there, military mining, private companies not to forget China.If there is nothing at all up there then why would they all spent money that could provide a much better living for those with low incomes?Even if it would be just for new schools and hospitals the money would be better spent if we trust the official claims about what is up there.The not so official claims....We already know NASA does not want to come with an official explanation why the moon sounds and reacts as if it would be hollow.Same for any video, audio or picture evidence indication there is sturctures on the moon or activities.Here is some of things that other people of great knowledge and with nice degrees under the belt say could, might or even is true about the moon.1. We have no evidence that the moon was always there, only what we have in record throughout history.Some claim the moon would be an artificially created structure.Indications of techonlogically highly advanced civilisations before us are there.And mining out a tiny planet and placing it in earths orbit is not far fetched if you consider higher technology levels than what we currently (officially) have.2. The satellite claim.Like the Death Star our moon could be an artifical satellite placed there for a purpose.What speaks for that theory is the impact craters on the moon.If it was never spinning or better rotating around all axis then a lot them would have been impossible.A crater always shows to some extend the direction of the impact.And on the moon they all apear to be direct and straight hits only.And even at some proper angle that against physics did not create a corresponding crater: Our plant would have been in the way.Officially it is claimed though that there would not be much of a directional crater because of the missing atmosphere and all debris settling evenly.Debris however does not explain the deformation from an impact at an angle.The satellite claim would also explain the missing depth in the craters.By the size of the bigger ones the crater should be much deeper and as said show some direction.If however the rocky surface landed there over time or is just the remaining natural hull then the craters could no go deeper.No advanced civilisation would design a stationary satellite that get a hole as soon as some big space rock hits it...3. Undocumented missions.If claims are true then we have been up there a lot more times than what our history lessons tell us.Tiny probes to analyse things, send data and so on are a thing not the the USA did.If you explain the reason for collecting seismic data by wanting to document an impact of an astroid then it is a joke.Sure it would be possible but what could we learn from the data?Nothing unless you consider that in some unoffial missions drilling was attempted on the moon.Sample collection to evaluate what is in the ground of use for future missions.Some documents now claim that all these attempts ended prematurely.Drills failed or broke, drill heads failed to go deeper and upon inspection were totally worn out.And all seemed to have happend at around the same depth.Although there is no atmosphere on the moon - if you stand on it you would be able to feel vibrations of the surface.Something astronauts would have felt during the drilling.And you can feel the difference between a vibration ending by stoping the drill and one that keeps going for a long time after...The dark side is visible in quite a few school books.Looks like the front with the brightness corrected just with different craters.Ever bothered to scan these pictures in and use some software to find matches to craters on the front of the moon ? ;)Anyways, those images show us the moon as near perfect sphere.What they don't show is how the images were actually made.They certainly did not use massive search lights from orbit to provide light for cameras.Means other sources were used, like IR, Radar, Microwaves and so on.Like we found the ruins of old civilisations by using satellites that can "see" through the forest and soil.And with that it would certainly be impossible to create such a nice and detailed image like we get from the front side.If some is edited, then why not all of it...And if all those missions we don't really know about also landed on the dark side it would explain a lot of things.All sightings seem to have disappeared to the dark side.And all leaked informations about previous missions before our first landing idicate the interest in the dark side was actually huge.They all ended though with one mission report claiming to have spotted lights on the dark side.Moving and stationary and when trying to get a better look by adjusting the orbit for the next round those lights were all gone.But audio recording indicate that from that moment on the astronauts were no longer alone and followed until turning back to earth.Several attempts seem to have been made to land near sightings on the dark side.Those where the astronauts returned home the never were the same again.Documents claim long treatment in mental facilites or suicide.The official missions appearntly started with the backstory of exploring.Some now claim it was attempt for a peaceful presence that still was not tolerated.4. Stories from involved companies.Even if NASA builds a craft themself they still need the corresponding supplies.And for a lot of things they are made outside by independent companies and contractors.Trying to track down early space mission again seems to confirm all claims about previous missions.The amount of materials provided would otherwise mean NASA actually crashed the majority of things right after take off without anyone noticing.5. Launches...So far all claims about previous moon missions or just secret ones were denied.I call this "plausible deniability".In all statements it is refered to the official launch sites.Things like being in public view and so on.What is not that commonly known is that there were a lot of capable launch sites available.After all big rockets have been tested in secrecy since we had the first.The claimed landing of the chinese started a big conundrum.At first the US claimed it never happened because there was no rocket that went up.Images prived by the chinese however clearly indicated the opposite.Not much later it was noticed that a few launches might have been misinterpreted as missle tests....What does that really mean?Quite simple: The surveillance is not perfect if the other side insists that it happened.The plausible deniablity is gone.If the US was "forced" to confrim they actually noticed the launches then it also means the chinese claims about the US doing the same could be true as well.And wasn't it a very important thing during the cold war to know when, where and why the other side launched anything?The silent agreement not to go up there again was broken many times...And although most if not all of these mission ended in orbit only it makes you wonder.What would be big deal even if all claims and conspiracies would be true?A hollow moon would defy what we know about how the universe works.With that it would also contradict some of solid laws of physics.So we need(ed) proof.Assuming we had that for a long time already then it leaves the big question of why it is hollow.Natural or artificial.Nothing natural would make sense so we investigate further.And if people still claim that they can use their little equippment to every now and then hear transmissions from the moon...Sure some things up there transmit data all the time but they do so on common frequencies and not in a range that is and never was used for long distance communications.The interest in the mon came back with our modern technology.We have watches with more computer power than what was used for the old moon missions.Materials and manufacturing methods that provide much safe crafts and space suits with a fraction of the weight of old designs.And we have new means of taking more or less limited energy up with us...We are prepared so to say.No matter what really is up there, no matter if it natural or artificial, just the fact that the moon is hollow changes our views on a lot of things....What do you think would be the best explanation for the data showing the moon rings like a bell?

Topic by Downunder35m   |  last reply

Free Energy - Am I insane or is it time to wake up?

Some might have noticed that I started a few, lets say, unconventional topics here.I added one just as a response to some very nasty feedback I got in other places.If you wonder what I am talking about check my topics about all things related to magnetism, "free energy" and such nonsense.The feedback I got was directed personal enough and verbal enough that I decided to increase my speed of seeding bread crumbs that might allow other people to "see" things slightly differently.Being called insane and mental case is the only things I use here as most of the rest would qualify as insults of the worst kind.The goal that was claimed I totally missed is to make people open up.Science or knowledge is as fluent as life itself.It eveloves with us, around us and through us.But we learned to use technology mostly to replace humans and to make our life easier.With that laziness also a reduced "desire" for knowledge and understand evolved.It is now far easier to "Google it" and forget it right after than to acutally learn and really understand something.A prime example is the disappearing artform of creating Japanese swords.No industrial process can produce a steel as pure and with such properties as used to be "offered" to the master swordsmith.Both are highly specialsed and rely on each other to create the perfect sword that outlasts generations.Once tradition gives way to modern life even this art will become a lost artform.We lost so much already, be it species, health, enviroment or just a "clean planet".Instead of accepting nature back into our scientific thinking and understanding we will continue to fail and get even more reluctant to learn new things.The blockbusters of science are no longer finding new laws of phsics or trying to understand things.We try to go further and further and use more and more dangerous ways to "create" the energy we continue to use more and more with no regrets.Well, other than complaining about the bills for it, which we wouldn't have otherwise...Why do we need more forms of colliding atoms to create energy?No because we need so much, only because we want more and more and at "centralised" locations.Distribution, control, money...Allowing us to use solar panels to reduce our electricity bill is nice, but try to overdo it and make good money by creating you own solar panel park and you get into trouble already.You can't see it anywhere other then back to your provider.And you only get whatever he thinks is a fair price for it, usually far less than what you pay to get it.Once you reach zero some even won't pay you money at all.And since there is always winter and night times it is only good that there will be always a need for electricity from the grid.Just try to get rid of your elecricity, water and gas connection in a township or city in case you found other sources you get for free.....Even if you build new most won't even allow you to without these "required" connections.If you need waste waster you also need tap water you pay for.And since a waste water treatment is no longer hyginic enough (despite proving the opposite) you can't get out.Gas you might be able to avoid but if there is electricity in the stree than it is already a building requirement to provie to the builder...What if all this nonsense and fakery actually has a true background somewhere?Humans are not meant to fly but we developed planes anyways.What once was a dream for a select few is now the prefered travel mode ofr most going on a far away holiday.But it is only so popular because there is a big demand.And where is demand profit can be made.Like a farmer:If you have ton of corn like twenty farmers around you then your local price will be low.Sell them a bit further away and you might get a lot more.In return our demand is closly related to the demands of those that provide the source of your demands.We all need energy and we evolve into a society that will need more of with every new generation.I try to give you hint in the form of a comparison:If you have a nice man cave and love to tinker than you might have a framed hand drill on the wall to remind you of how it all started for your grandfather.Or in most case you just liked it and got it for 2 bucks from a garage sale LOLEither, imagine all electricity would be gone and lost forever.Suddenly this crappy drill becomes a status symbol because only you can do things other people really struggle with - you drill holes with ease...Imagine the rpice you could ask to sell it..."Free energy" is the same but sadly in reverse.If a company sees a profit than it will be utilised some way.And if it happens that energy is your main income and keeps you rich and in control than you don't mind paying two or three fortunes to someone so he can forget and is happy give you his machine.Or would you really say no to life of no limits and with nothing to worry for your future generations of kids and grandkids?A few tried anyway to make a furtune themself by keeping a circle of trusted persons and finding enough willing investors to get their project going.Even if you can find some flaws there are still doubts about what someone would go through the lenght of providing online updates, sales numbers, testimonials and so on for years.Funny enough actually finding someone who is sceptic and make him check and report about it does not work either.No big university orders one or asks to really check it and provide a real world testimonial.No government or legal agency steps in to stop the "fraud" either.What is real, what is fake, what is disguise - you can figure it out if you want to.Ok, I could, but why bother if litereally everyone one already did and showed nothing works when it comes to the great unknown?Exactly for that reason alone it is worth it!People might make money now from ads or through clickbait but the topic is older than the internet already.And the proof even older than electricity...So many people would not try unless someone convinced them to try it ;)Might be just a bad joke but gets the point:If you ask 20 people if you can swim through the river to get to the other side then you might get confusing answers.1. No problem it is safe.Fully true but the guy might be from far up the river where it has no crocodiles in it...2. You could try it but a boat is safer as there might be corcodiles here.Still leaves you the option to swim as you can't be sure about the reptiles...You could go on and create a near endless list with bridges up ahead and so on.What it comes to is that depending on HOW you ask and WHO you ask the answers can be as different as day and night.In terms of science and making someone understand it take the most basic approach possible.Remember that time in school when your math teacher confronted you the existence of negative numbers?The confusion with the zero and how to add, subtract or multiply...Your teacher might have been great or you a quick learner but imagine the worst possible way to teach you an understanding of negative numbers!You know that 5 - 8 equals -3.You learned that this is true and why it is so.Imagine your teacher would have explained this extra simple like back with the apples when learning to add numbers."If there are 5 people in a room and 8 people leave the room, then 3 people must go back in so that room is empty!"Makes total sense if you expand the number game from above to 5 - 8 + 3 = 0 !!No sense at all however if you do it with people ;)People are not numbers, pressures or volumes, they are "real" to us.We associate certain things automatically, other we learn to associate and interpret through learning.Learning however is no longer actually doing all that would be involved in less technological world.We like magic tricks because we fail to understand how it is done or sometimes even how it is possible.Today it is for entertainment only.A true magician would never use his skills to scam people.But spend enough and research and you can do the same trick you saw on stage.Some not as good or not all though - thats life...Ask a good magician how how long it took him to get his new trick ready for the stage and quite often you get to hear it was years in the making.Think about that fact when you judge what is possible by dedication ;)

Question by Downunder35m 

Sharpening a concave blades like Kukri or similar

Every now and then you have someone approaching with the odd job.This time it was in the form of an old Kukri / Gurkha knife.Wasn't expecting this when I was asked a few days ago if I could sharpen some old knife so it can be used for camping.The knife had a few marks from hitting hard stuff or maybe the occasional nail.But the worst was that for as long as guy had that knife it was only "sharpened" using a belt sander.You know, these tiny machines advertised to give your (kitchen-) knife the perfect edge.We could now argue about the pros and cons of having a knife edge that is literally rounded.But once it was done so many times that the edge really looks rounded it becomes obvious why this method only works for thinner blades.Adding to the problem was the fact that the belt used was just over 1.5cm wide.Appereantly so it is easier to do the concave part of the blade.Lets just say lengthwise it looked like someone created a wave pattern LOLThere was nothing "straight" on this nice blade anymore.Now, if you look up how to properly sharpen thise Kukri knifes then you can find all sorts of really useful tips.One I really likes was to use some eraser and toglue sandpaper on it.Small and flexible enough to cause minimal damages to the curve towards the handle.Another nice one is to use half round diamond file, preferable of a finer grit in the 600 region.Should work fine - if you plan to invest an awful lot of money on such a file.I however like things quite often done the old fashioned way.The oldest trick in the book....Whether you are using chisels and work on wood, just love to keep your knifes sharp or go on long camping or hiking trips - sharp knifes and tools just become your thing.The main thing everyone tells you is a super flat surface for whatever is supposed to sharpen your blade.For the normal stuff that is fine and good and you only need to flatten out your stones every now and then.But what about these odd jobs?Imagine you would need to sharpen a long paper cutting blade on some machine.Might be over a meter long and it has to stay with a perfectly straight edge.Back in the day this task was not done with some very expensive stone of large size....Instead sandpaper of various grit was used on a flat steel surface.I actually prefer a small pane of glass and tape my sandpaper on it.Hard to find anything finer than 1000 or 2000 grit but you might be surprised how well this stuff polishes onces clogged up a bit.Its all about the right level of wetness...Anyways, for our Kukri in question I decided it is time to do the same but in a way that does not harm the blade, constantly cut into the eraser and still is solid and "flat".If you still work with a sickle then you already know where I am going here ;)I used a small diameter spray can as my surface to hold the sandpaper.Of course a piece of PVC pipe, round wood or similar would warok the same way....Sticky tape does not work well with sandpaper unless you use double sided stuff.But it is enough to wrap one round on the top and one on the bottom of the sandpaper on the can to hold in place.So much for the basics....If you know how to sharpen a knife then you also know that there is a prefered way of doing it.Depending on the blade and stone in question you literally try to cut a thin slice out of the stone with every stroke.Either stright or with a cutting motion.This works fine with sandpaper on a flat surface, not so much however on a round surface.Try it and you see how you cut off the sand from the paper and constantly ruin your edge.The only way to do it is to move with the edge.You start from the heel and stroke to the tip.The can is used likea sharpening rod and shall always stay at a 90° to the curve of the blade.Takes a bit of practice to find the right grip to hold the blade while moving and twisting the can but well worth it.The rounded surface only allows for a very thin area of the sandpaper to work on the edge.I started with 120 grit!!!It left a trail of destruction on the edge, at least in the rounded up section....Once I only had a very thin bit left on the edge from the old sharpening I switched to 240 grit until a flat edge formed.As the Kukri was a disaster this process still tok over 4 hours to complete.That blade was properly hardened too...The start of the finnishing was done by jump right to 600 grit paper.The first can was just slightly smaller in diameter than the concave bend in the blade - perfect to smooth out those nasty bumps.But with a burr forming now on the edge and minor mishap with angle of the can towards the curve of the blade would mean cutting into the can while sharpening the concave bit.Meant I used my emergency insect repellant can as I did not like the idea of hoping my pepper shaker would start leaking while sharpening ;)If you blade is not too damaged you can of course start right away with a smaller diameter.The process is the same as before.Move along the blade and keep the can at the 90° angle towards the curve.Once you feel a burr forming on the side turn over until you have a bur on the previous side again.Repeat until all the marks from the coarser grit are gone and the edge has a uniform shine.Switch to a finer grit and go as high as you can here.I had to stop at 1000 grit as my supply of 2000 and 4000 grit is out.Hints and tricks along the way....It really helps to do this sandpaper sharpening under running water.The paper won't clog up, you won't risk a losse grain making really deep marks...But on a bad blade this can take several hours and would do it with a small aquarium pump or so and some gloves.A fine but stiff brush and soapy water however do wonders to clean up used sandpaper!I prefer to use these re-used pieces before switching to a finer grit.In most cases they are already finer than the next grit and create a nice polish that makes the visual confirmation of your right angle and angle of attack easy.A kukri is a working blade!It is mot meant to make fish filet or shave you legs.It is somewhere between axe, big bowie knife and hatchet.That mean if you would dare to give a 8° angle either side of the edge you would have a pretty damn wide edge...Stick to the original in width but keep it nice and flat.It is good compromise between cutting sharpness and durability when for example chopping wood for your camp fire.DO NOT USE A BELT SANDER!!I said it before but have to repeat it again as there is people using a big belt sander with enough free space to add a set of wheel that creat the curve I got from my spray can.The guys in India that make these knife do this blind folded....It takes years of practise to get the steady hand required not to cut through the belt.The beginners start in reverse, meaning the belt runs towards the edge.These guys only to the basic forming of the edge with really coarse grit.Basically to remove the marks from the forging.After that the pro takes over the blades and he has the belt running towards the edge!If you are silly enough to try it at home be prepared to have the belt flying in your face very violently!!The reverse sanding can't be used to finnish a blade as you never get a proper sharpness and flatness right on the edge.So just stick to manual and take an hour or so longer but then be able to enjoy a cold drink when done.You need surprisingly little sandpaper in terms of clogging up and getting useless until you get to the finer grits.If you use a wooden dowel or similar then make it a bit longer and add strips about 6cm wide of sandpaper.This way you have all the grits you need in one place and can take them with you to keep your blade sharp ;)If you glue it onto the stick it is also quite easy to give it quick brush clean when done.The really tricky part starts from about 800 grit onwards.Every mishap on the concave part can mean damage to your paper or to your edge.When using stone most beginner think that using a lot of pressure is a good way to remove the material quickly.In reality however it is just a sure way to wobble the blade over the stone, especially if the blade is not fully straight.Sandpaper can be more aggressive than your stones as in our case you only work with a little area and every time you turn the can only a little bit you have a fresh piece of paper working instead of a slurry building up.This mean you really do't need much pressure at all.It is the repetition, not the pressure that gives you the edge if you don't mind the pun here. ;)For a real working knife stopping at 1000 grit once you do single strokes either side of the blade is sufficient.The tiny burr left will disappear quickly during use and the Chakmak can be used for a quick refurbishing after every longer use.Should mean you only need to get the sandpaper out once you edge actually started to get blunt again.The final stroke....There are those people that don't have a kukri to go camping...Some people like to collect them.Restoring an old kukri can be done like with any other knife.That is until you want a razo sharp edge that is also highly polished.This is quite possible with the original edge width on the kukri.But of course you can only go so far with sandpaper....Modern technolgy provides us with the solution in several options.Firstly we have the ceramic sharpening rods.Unless you can do with kitchen variety thickness you need to pay a lot of money.A short 8cm diameter rod can set you back over 100 bucks with ease.Especially if you want something that provides a mirror like finnish.And alternative that is often available relatively cheap is a ruby rod.They can often be found with slight damages that make them useless for laser applications.Even burnt out rods are still fine as long as they are not cracked.It is quite hard (literally) to give them a satin finnish but I found that good quality sandpaper is sometimes capable of doing it.I like one side smooth and the other half of the rod with a satin finnish to prepare the edge.On the budget there is quality wet and dry sandpaper as commonly used in paintshops.If used dry the finer grits tend to clog up on such a wide edge.Once you have a piece of 1000 or finer grit that is fully clogged up you can use to give the edge a final polish.With this you won't even need a leather strop anymore but as said it takes a lot of practise so you won't cut the paper in the concave area.The steel rod....If you happen to have a hardened steel rod, like from a motion rail, small drive shaft or a big drill then give it a try.When using a drill:Of course use the end of the drill, not the working part ;)Also make sure it really is motth as any burr from the chuck or such will cause deep scratches on your blade.If it starts to feel sticky after a few good stroke you know the drill method is working.If it continues to feel very smooth and you don't see any polishing effect at all if tried on a small area only then you blade is of really good quality.But then again you would have confirmed that already by the ongoing swearing during the endless hours trying to remove some material from the edge...A word of advise for the first time user of a kukri:Although a good kukri is hard to damage without hitting a stone or metal, you can make blunt very quickly.It is top heavy blade and requires a steady hand when working on other things than meat.Chopping into some wood and letting the blade slip can deform your edge.A little mishap can be fixed with chakmak but not if hit hardwood badly a couple of times.And tempting as might be to use it as a small hatchet or axe to split your kindling:Never hold a piece of wood and then hack into it from the top with your kukri!Not only can you miss the wood and hit your hand, the wood can also split far easier or in unexpected directions!If the kurki is sharp you then have a good chance to loose a finger or two!

Topic by Downunder35m