During the ongoing redevelopment of Belgrade airport I did find myself with a short connection there and unable to find a departure board. I checked the airport website, but it only had the flight names and not gates!
Beginning to get worried and with no-one to talk to in the construction site of an airport I discovered that I needed to rotate my phone and then the extra columns appeared on their website. Yes I had tried scrolling and zooming, but in portrait it wouldn't actually render outside of the visible width.
To continue in the same vein of pedanticism, it seems from your link that he did not actually die on stage, but some hours later.
Wikipedia has an article[0] of various people who died on stage and also some shortly afterwards, such as Molière.
I was going to suggest Sid James as a replacement for your anecdote, although he was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital, so it's possible he died en route. The chap after him on the list, Aimo Leikas, seems like a good candidate as he shot himself during a very convincing Russian roulette act.
I would argue his process of dying started on stage "He collapsed on stage in a fit of coughing and haemorrhaging while performing" even though he made it till home.
But yes (erm, I mean, "And yes") your russian Roulette example and the whole Wikipedia article is probably better for pedantic points ..
The article refers to Magnum ice creams a lot, and makes it easy to infer that it is a British ice cream although it never actually says that. There's one clue in the article:
> The Magnum debuted in Germany in 1989, and hit the UK the year after.
Curiosity piqued, and one wikipedia article later [0], it turns out that it was originally a Danish invention developed in the late 1980s, first mass produced in Autumn 1988. It also mentions a Belgian needing to develop the needed chocolate in 1987.
Of all places I would not have guessed Aarhus was the home to Magnum, and it's celebrated with a gym called Friskohus (Frisko is the Danish Unilever sub-brand) on the site today.
As with all design on aircraft, weight is a key part of the specification. A nacelle that could contain all possible failure modes would be too heavy to fly.
Losing a fan blade, as demonstrated in your two youtube links, is both a more likely event to occur and low enough energy to be able to contain with a reasonable structure.
However consider the situation in [0] where a turbine disk became detached from its shaft. The disk is still taking power from the exhaust gas, but rather using the energy to power the compressor or rotate the fan it is now just increasing its own kinetic energy. This continues until the incredibly strong turbine disk rotates itself apart. From the linked article:
> For engineering purposes, disk fragments are assumed to have infinite energy at the moment of release; they will cut through any reasonable material and cannot be contained
You can see from photographs of the aftermath, the nacelle is missing where this happened
There are some nuances to it. British Airways (not the original British Airways Ltd [0], who merged to form BOAC) was established to manage several existing airlines that had already been nationalised (BOAC, BEA) and two regional carriers (Cambrian Airways and Northeast Airlines).
Of course BOAC and BEA had been made my consolidations of many smaller airlines which gets messy quickly when tracing the lineage. Even Cambrian and Northeast had formed British Air Services prior to this which was 70% owned by BEA.
So it is technically true that is was started as a state owned airline, but one made from companies that were originally created as private with a mixed history of state ownership.
You may be thinking of a different film, as all the cast members listed on wikipedia[0] are stated to have died after 1945.
The trivia section of the German wiki page of the same film says there's a disputed rumour that the film was prolonged to help the young extras avoid conscription.
I said a good overview. Many experts have given their analysis on why Lynetteholmen sucks including environmental scientists [1]. The very fact that the environmental assessments were done piecemeal [2] plainly demonstrates the politicians responsible for this mega-project disaster knew exactly how bad it was.
The second route is currently being built in Munich [0], with work started in 2017. I recently watched a youtube video by The B1M about rail projects in Germany that included a long section about the currently ongoing works in Munich [1] that gives a good visual overview.
If it takes energy to compress the air in the cylinder - doesn't it also release most of that energy when that compressed air is expanded on the subsequent stroke?
If you release the compressed air without pushing the cylinder down you would lose that energy, but you would need a extra device to do so (by lifting a valve at the right time). This option does exist for large vehicles like trucks as a compression release engine brake [0], but this isn't something you'd have on a family car.
In a petrol engine you always want the same ratio of petrol to air in the mix that is taken into a cylinder. As you want to vary the amount of fuel, and therefore power developed, you have to be able to therefore limit the amount of air that is sucked in. Otherwise the engine would always run at full power.
There is a mechanical restrictor called a throttle plate that lives inside the throttle body that restricts how much air the cylinder can pull in (and therefore how much fuel is injected to get the same fuel/air mix). This is controlled by the throttle. When you are coasting, this plate is in its most closed position. This creates significant resistance on the intake stroke, and is where the majority of energy is lost during engine braking. This is also known as a pumping loss.
Diesels always intake the same amount of air, so they can compress it enough to autoignite the fuel. They vary the amount of fuel injected to the same volume of air. This means no throttle body or plate, so unless an extra exhaust restrictor has been added there is minimal engine braking on a diesel engine.
You're right. Petrol engines are air pumps so I should've realised the explanation wasn't correct.
Though the ECU would be doing the AFR management on modern EFI engines as the injectors aren't vacuum operated like Carburetors were. You should be able to cut fuel injection when coasting in a modern engine, can't run lean if there's no fuel at all. Not sure if carbs could do the same.
On all the fuel injected engines I have owned there is a physical cable that controls the position of the throttle plate. There is an airflow mass sensor the other side of the plate to measure the amount of air and therefore how much fuel needs to be injected. So interestingly in these sort of engines you're really just controlling airflow to the engine rather than fuel/air mix like on one with a carburettor.
More modern engines have electronically controlled throttle plates, and this is definitely somewhere you could do something clever like you suggest - cutting fuel flow but also maximising airflow when there is zero throttle input.
I assume engine braking is generally considered a beneficial thing by manufacturers, but it could be fun to be able to customise the amount. Or do something like have the braking come on gently at first then harder. Maybe even try and have a linear or flat response curve vs. engine rpm.
> cutting fuel flow but also maximising airflow when there is zero throttle input
You don't want to do this. Much of the engine braking effect is from pulling the intake air charge past the mostly closed throttle plate. On a car with a wide open throttle plate [even with no fuel], the engine is acting more like a spring than a damper. On the intake stroke, it will pull an intake air charge past the small restriction of the open intake valve(s), then compress it on the compression stroke, then release that compressed energy on the "power" stroke, then exhaust it past the small restriction of the open exhaust valves. Pushing air past the valves will cost energy, but it's not much.
This is why diesel trucks' engine braking works differently. (Diesels don't have a throttle plate.) They can open the exhaust valves to prevent the energy recovery in the "power" stroke to create a higher net braking force. Jake Brake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_release_engine_bra...
> Or do something like have the braking come on gently at first then harder.
You can do this by letting go of gas pedal slowly. I have "current amount of fuel used" info in my car (liters/100km), it shows pretty clearly, that when going fast and slowly letting go of gas, amount of fuels slowly goes to 0. If I let go of gas fast, the engine is intelligent enough to not close throttle as fast as possible, still probably takes 1 second.
> More modern engines have electronically controlled throttle plates, and this is definitely somewhere you could do something clever like you suggest - cutting fuel flow but also maximising airflow when there is zero throttle input.
They cut fuel flow and close throttle plate almost completely but still allow some small amount of air, in order to actually do engine braking. If you need to coast, you can apply clutch in manual. Don't know that much about automatic, but from what I've driven, they use "lift gas" as a "engine braking" signal, so probably they can't really coast that good.
I've got both at the moment on my two Hondas. Both manual, one with a throttle cable and one with throttle-by-wire. There's quite a bit of difference in how they handle off throttle. The cable will just slam the throttle shut if you just jump off the pedal (obviously) and it jerks pretty hard. The throttle-by-wire car hangs the throttle a little when letting off and doesn't just immediately start decelerating. Then it's much smoother once it does start slowing down. The ECU definitely doing something to smooth it out.
Funny because the cars build dates are only 2 years apart, 2005 and 2007, and they're both K20 engines but the engines handle so different.
The ECU is doing that because rapid changes in state are bad for emissions. Letting you just slam the throttle closed could result in a tiny, but measurable at OEM scale, amount of extra fuel going half burnt out the tailpipe. Slamming it open can cause too lean combustion and oxide byproducts which.
The OEMs try real hard to prevent this because the amounts of emissions byproducts that aren't water or C02 they're allowed to produce are on the order of single digit grams per multiple miles (you can mentally file it as "about the baseline air quality in urban areas" though the rules are hugely more complex than that) so these edge cases matter.
An idling I4 has about 10 injection cycles per second. And the ECU clocks injection time corrections at least at that rate, more likely at double that rate or more. So I think that the smoothing is mostly there for the owner's wellbeing, not emissions.
Beginning to get worried and with no-one to talk to in the construction site of an airport I discovered that I needed to rotate my phone and then the extra columns appeared on their website. Yes I had tried scrolling and zooming, but in portrait it wouldn't actually render outside of the visible width.