Nikon's patent applications for mirrorless camera system?

On 11/17/2010 6:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 11/16/2010 5:36 PM, Wilba wrote:
Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
Pete Stavrakoglou said:

I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler
300C!
Never thought I'd see a day like that.

...but the 300C, on the open Hwy, with cruise control set, shuts down
one bank of cylinders to become a virtual 4 banger.

Yes it does, and it is very effective. Still, you get V8 power and
high MPG. City mileage was quite respectable for a V8. Older V8s back
in the day would get 10 MPG, no it's almost double that for some. Not
too shabby.

The most fuel efficient form of transport was the old sailing ship -
they got a million miles to the galleon.

Last time I looked, nobody fed gasoline to horses, or camels.

No, but try to cross a desert on a horse without bringing any horse fuel
and you'll be disabused of the notion that they do not use fuel. You're
conflating "gasoline" with "fuel".



You need a horse bricker. Works similar to the camel bricker.

--
Peter

Neil Ellwood wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
Pete Stavrakoglou said:

I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler
300C!
Never thought I'd see a day like that.

...but the 300C, on the open Hwy, with cruise control set, shuts down
one bank of cylinders to become a virtual 4 banger.

Yes it does, and it is very effective. Still, you get V8 power and
high MPG. City mileage was quite respectable for a V8. Older V8s back
in the day would get 10 MPG, no it's almost double that for some. Not
too shabby.

The most fuel efficient form of transport was the old sailing ship -
they got a million miles to the galleon.

Not quite true. Most wouldn't have even got to 100,000 miles and the
control systems used a great deal of manpower. Sails were very labour
intensive until 19th century.

Yeah? Wow. Do you have references so that I can update my database? Thanks!

"Wilba" wrote in message
eb.com...
Neil Ellwood wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
Pete Stavrakoglou said:

I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler
300C!
Never thought I'd see a day like that.

...but the 300C, on the open Hwy, with cruise control set, shuts down
one bank of cylinders to become a virtual 4 banger.

Yes it does, and it is very effective. Still, you get V8 power and
high MPG. City mileage was quite respectable for a V8. Older V8s back
in the day would get 10 MPG, no it's almost double that for some. Not
too shabby.

The most fuel efficient form of transport was the old sailing ship -
they got a million miles to the galleon.

Not quite true. Most wouldn't have even got to 100,000 miles and the
control systems used a great deal of manpower. Sails were very labour
intensive until 19th century.

Yeah? Wow. Do you have references so that I can update my database?
Thanks!

Google or Wikipedia should be able to help you out there.

But the long and short of it is, he's right. Square-rigged vessels (up to
the 19th century) took a great deal of manpower to operate -- men going
aloft to manage the sails, etc. Later boats with fore-and-aft rigging
required much less crew which could manage everything from the deck, and in
fact several have circumnavigated the globe single-handed -- which I doubt
anyone would even dream of trying with a square-rigger.

Joshua Slocum was the first to do this, in the 1890s. A retired sea captain
who had sailed square-rigged ships most of his life, he had to teach himself
to handle a fore-and-aft rig. He wrote a book about his three-year voyage,
"Sailing Alone Around the World." A fascinating read, and you can probably
find the book free for the downloading somewhere. Highly recommended.

Neil Harrington wrote:
Wilba wrote
Neil Ellwood wrote:
Wilba wrote:

The most fuel efficient form of transport was the old sailing ship -
they got a million miles to the galleon.

Not quite true. Most wouldn't have even got to 100,000 miles and the
control systems used a great deal of manpower. Sails were very labour
intensive until 19th century.

Yeah? Wow. Do you have references so that I can update my database?
Thanks!

Google or Wikipedia should be able to help you out there.

But the long and short of it is, he's right. Square-rigged vessels (up to
the 19th century) took a great deal of manpower to operate -- men going
aloft to manage the sails, etc. Later boats with fore-and-aft rigging
required much less crew which could manage everything from the deck, and in
fact several have circumnavigated the globe single-handed -- which I doubt
anyone would even dream of trying with a square-rigger.

Joshua Slocum was the first to do this, in the 1890s. A retired sea captain
who had sailed square-rigged ships most of his life, he had to teach himself
to handle a fore-and-aft rig. He wrote a book about his three-year voyage,
"Sailing Alone Around the World." A fascinating read, and you can probably
find the book free for the downloading somewhere. Highly recommended.

But I never heard of a big cargo ship that works like a modern sailboat.
My (limited) understanding is the big square sails are only good for
sailing with the wind behind your back (like a spinnaker) using the
trade winds - but they flounder if the winds aren't cooperating.

On 11/18/10 PDT 8:56 PM, Paul Furman wrote:


But I never heard of a big cargo ship that works like a modern sailboat.
My (limited) understanding is the big square sails are only good for
sailing with the wind behind your back (like a spinnaker) using the
trade winds - but they flounder if the winds aren't cooperating.

A modern large cargo ship would be Marconi rigged, but even square
sailers weren't strictly down wind. More across, if you will. Some could
sail at a bit better than 90 degrees off the wind, but effectively this
means they can't go dead up wind no matter how many tacks they make.

--
john mcwilliams

In article ,
says...

On 11/18/10 PDT 8:56 PM, Paul Furman wrote:


But I never heard of a big cargo ship that works like a modern sailboat.
My (limited) understanding is the big square sails are only good for
sailing with the wind behind your back (like a spinnaker) using the
trade winds - but they flounder if the winds aren't cooperating.

A modern large cargo ship would be Marconi rigged, but even square
sailers weren't strictly down wind. More across, if you will. Some could
sail at a bit better than 90 degrees off the wind, but effectively this
means they can't go dead up wind no matter how many tacks they make.

According to Alan Villiers, "6 compass points from the wind". Howard
Chappelle says 5.5. I've read that Nelson's logs report tacks through
90 degrees. Put it all together and one can say that an average ship in
good hands could point within 45-50 degrees of the wind. STS Mir, a
conventional full-rigged ship designed in the 1980s, can point 38.5
degrees. Maltese Falcon, using the Dynasail design, a thorough
modernization of the square rig, has demonstrated 38.

The notion that a square rigger can't beat to windward just plain flies
in the face of history.

As for a modern cargo vessel having a Marconi rig, that's a possibility,
however historically fore and aft rigs haven't done too well on large
cargo vessels--compare the histories of the six and seven masted
schooners with those of the largest square-riggers.

Neil Harrington wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Neil Ellwood wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
Pete Stavrakoglou said:

I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler
300C!
Never thought I'd see a day like that.

...but the 300C, on the open Hwy, with cruise control set, shuts down
one bank of cylinders to become a virtual 4 banger.

Yes it does, and it is very effective. Still, you get V8 power and
high MPG. City mileage was quite respectable for a V8. Older V8s
back
in the day would get 10 MPG, no it's almost double that for some. Not
too shabby.

The most fuel efficient form of transport was the old sailing ship -
they got a million miles to the galleon.

Not quite true. Most wouldn't have even got to 100,000 miles and the
control systems used a great deal of manpower. Sails were very labour
intensive until 19th century.

Yeah? Wow. Do you have references so that I can update my database?
Thanks!

Google or Wikipedia should be able to help you out there.

But the long and short of it is, he's right. Square-rigged vessels (up to
the 19th century) took a great deal of manpower to operate -- men going
aloft to manage the sails, etc. Later boats with fore-and-aft rigging
required much less crew which could manage everything from the deck, and
in fact several have circumnavigated the globe single-handed -- which I
doubt anyone would even dream of trying with a square-rigger.

Joshua Slocum was the first to do this, in the 1890s. A retired sea
captain who had sailed square-rigged ships most of his life, he had to
teach himself to handle a fore-and-aft rig. He wrote a book about his
three-year voyage, "Sailing Alone Around the World." A fascinating read,
and you can probably find the book free for the downloading somewhere.
Highly recommended.

That's very interesting Neil, but what does it have to do with the question?

In article om,
says...

Neil Harrington wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Neil Ellwood wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
Pete Stavrakoglou said:

I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler
300C!
Never thought I'd see a day like that.

...but the 300C, on the open Hwy, with cruise control set, shuts down
one bank of cylinders to become a virtual 4 banger.

Yes it does, and it is very effective. Still, you get V8 power and
high MPG. City mileage was quite respectable for a V8. Older V8s
back
in the day would get 10 MPG, no it's almost double that for some. Not
too shabby.

The most fuel efficient form of transport was the old sailing ship -
they got a million miles to the galleon.

Not quite true. Most wouldn't have even got to 100,000 miles and the
control systems used a great deal of manpower. Sails were very labour
intensive until 19th century.

Yeah? Wow. Do you have references so that I can update my database?
Thanks!

Google or Wikipedia should be able to help you out there.

But the long and short of it is, he's right. Square-rigged vessels (up to
the 19th century) took a great deal of manpower to operate -- men going
aloft to manage the sails, etc. Later boats with fore-and-aft rigging
required much less crew which could manage everything from the deck, and
in fact several have circumnavigated the globe single-handed -- which I
doubt anyone would even dream of trying with a square-rigger.

Joshua Slocum was the first to do this, in the 1890s. A retired sea
captain who had sailed square-rigged ships most of his life, he had to
teach himself to handle a fore-and-aft rig. He wrote a book about his
three-year voyage, "Sailing Alone Around the World." A fascinating read,
and you can probably find the book free for the downloading somewhere.
Highly recommended.

That's very interesting Neil, but what does it have to do with the question?

He obviously doesn't understand that it takes a bit more effort to
manage a 400 foot long 11,000 ton merchant ship than it does to manage a
40 foot long 12 ton oyster boat.

And in point of fact he's wrong about the square rigger, too. One
person can operate the 289 foot long "Maltese Falcon", a thoroughly
modern square rigger, although her size, value, and technological
complexity preclude single-handed passages.