sibeymai

what camera did you use ?

Canon TX-1. An awesome camera/camcorder combo that's only about $400USD/13,000THB. It has 10x zoom, image stabilization (I would never go back to a camera without IS; it allows crystal clear shots across the room in low light without flash; I would miss millions of awesome shots without IS), 7.1 megapixels, and is slightly larger than a deck of cards. It takes 720p hi-def video and accepts $80USD 8 GB SDHC cards. It shoots video in the nearly uncompressed Motion JPEG which means that it basically is taking 30 1280x720 JPEG images per second which makes for incredible quality video and the ability to capture amazing stills from the video.

Two of my siblings shoot with digital SLRs (Canon EOS Rebel XT/XTi - 400D) and I have a really hard time deciding which I'd rather have. At this point I'm leaning toward the TX-1. It's versatility makes so that I can nab lots of shots my siblings miss. Furthermore it is extremely portable. If you have all the time in the world and don't need video, a DSLR will take the cake, but for all around usage, nothing beats the TX-1.

In case you hadn't noticed, I am passionate about photography!

Sorry to be going off topic a bit...but I'm considering buying a video recorder (Sony I guess since I've had one before) but your description of the canon TX-1 sounds great. Would a Sony handycam produce superior video to the canon TX-1 ? Is 8GB SDHC the largest or can get larger ? What length of video can be recorded on 8GB ? What's the pros and cons of the Sony (say, with 60GB HDD) versus the canon TX-1 ?

I've never heard of magnetic bearings used in electric motors. Give me one instance.

I've not heard of a practical application of magnetic bearings although in theory it should be possible to suspend a shaft within a magnetic field. Perhaps it is not technically possible due to problems created by rotating magnetic fields. Considering the benefits of a frictionless bearing, if it was possible to use magnets to achieve this I suppose someone would have figured out how to do it by now.

The problem is unlikely to be anything mechanical to do with the braking system. The prime suspect is the ABS components. The experience you had sounds very much like the ABS working as if all the wheels were on the verge of locking up. The system then applies and releases the brakes very quickly...several times a second...to keep the wheel rotating and maintaining traction. This is usually the shudder felt and it can come all the way back to the brake pedal.

To see if this is what happened find a gravel road with lots of small slippery pebbles. When doing about 60k/mh hit the brakes as hard and as suddenly as you can. You will most likely experience the same sensation as you have described as the ABS struggles to maintain wheel rotation.

If it is in fact the same sensation then chances are you have a faulty ABS component somewhere.

If turbo timers really were going to give you much better longevity I'm sure manufacturers would make then standard and not options.

Did you know that if you allow your diesel powered vehicle to idle or run at low RPM without a load for too long, it will cause 'glazing' of the cylinders? It takes about 4 hours plus to cause such a problem & the repair cost is much greater than replacing a turbo. Does the manufacturer install an "I've been idling/running at low load/low RPM for too long" timer? Of course not. But I'll bet if you read the owners/operaters manual, it will be mentioned.

Ceramic bearings may be a great improvement over steel and other materials but I wonder why haven't magnetic bearings been used ? Very simple and absolutely no wear and tear. The turbo would probably last longer than the engine.

This would be all well & good except that magnets are destroyed by excessive heat & vibration, both of which a turbo generates.

Can I ask, who in their right mind is going to "let an engine idle for about 4 hours"? Albeit I take your point about the "glazing" but does this not occur to some extent on the cylinder walls as a consequence of 'normal' running? I seem to recollect that years ago, when I used to do my own engine repairs, that the cylinder walls (petrol engines granted) had what I would have described as "glazing" or was I seeing some other effect?

Interesting about the 'magnetic bearings', but why the comment about vibration? If the turbo is running normally, there should not be vibration; otherwise it would wreck itself in no time.

There must be some reasons why magnetic bearings are not being used in turbos although heat and vibration probably aren't the reasons. Magnets work just fine in electric motors which would experience similar amounts of heat and vibration.

Ceramic bearings may be a great improvement over steel and other materials but I wonder why haven't magnetic bearings been used ? Very simple and absolutely no wear and tear. The turbo would probably last longer than the engine.

Hi 'sibeymai'. I've not come across 'magnetic bearings ' before, but the idea sounds great. What have you seen them used on upto now, just as a matter of interest.

The concept of frictionless magnetic bearings is the same principle employed in magnetic levitation trains. It may be technically difficult to employ magnets in a revolving bearing application but probably not impossible.

never had a turbo timer on my Nissan 200SX and it had similar performance to the Subaru WRX, neither of which comes standard from the factory with a turbo timer. Nor odes the Vigo or Fortuner, so this should tell you something.

I see it as a gimmick, nothing more. In early turbos it may have been beneficial. I hammered the Nissan many times a did a lot of start/stop driving. It did 120,000kms without any complaint. I don't know what material the bearings were but as with any moving part eventually it will fail. If failure is per the manufavtures averge spec then no complaint. Nothing lasts forever. If turbo timers really were going to give you much better longevity I'm sure manufacturers would make then standard and not options.

Ceramic bearings may be a great improvement over steel and other materials but I wonder why haven't magnetic bearings been used ? Very simple and absolutely no wear and tear. The turbo would probably last longer than the engine.

I have a suggestion that based on experience in other uses it should work but as yet I have not tried on timber decking. I have a similar problem with a timber deck and am seriously considering giving this a try.

Try to find a two pack polyurethane epoxy in a clear finish. Basically it is a similar material to the gel coat used with fibreglass and should be a lot tougher than normal urethane finishes. It will be tricky to apply with a brush because it's viscosity decreases as the mixture sets. I suggest applying by spray doing small areas at a time to ensure the mixture does not set...the spray gun will be useless if it sets inside. Thorough cleaning with acetone is needed between each mix. It will be very tricky to work with in a hot climate as the ambient temperature will accelerate the setting of the mix. Can only suggest you experiment to get a cool mix (less catalyst giving longer working time before the mix sets) and be very accurate with your mixing quantities....down to the exact millilitre with the catalyst and watch the temperature at the time of use carefully.

The material is sometimes referred to as "flow-coat". It does have the benefit of being able to be tinted, so if clear is not possible you can tint to a wood colour or any other colour. The surface will be slippery when wet. If you want some non-skid area lightly sprinkle fine sand over the area painted before it dries.

Excellent results can be achieved by people with experience with the material. Could be worth looking for professionals, possibly from boat building who work with plastics and resins. Will cost a bit but a professional finish should last at least 5, maybe 10 years.

Any more word on those cracked runways?

Last I heard they were still looking for a couple of 747s that landed but disappeared en-route to the terminal building never to be heard from again.

Despite the original post stating that the ATSB has been looking into this, I find it very hard to believe that Qantas would actually be doing this for the simple fact that it is illegal. An airliner must have sufficient fuel to fly to its scheduled destination under the forecasted weather conditions, plus fuel to remain in a holding pattern for an amount of time, plus fuel to divert to another suitable airport after holding. These are the rules. Qantas, just as other airlines, may want to cut costs here and there, but there is no way they will be able to have a minimum fuel policy legally. If this is happening, it's about time CASA (the Australian aviation authority) wakes up and does something about it.

I am not familiar with the area, but I can imagine that Perth is far away from a suitable airport to land a big jet... I would think that the flight would be diverted to Darwin?

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/invest...r200605473.aspx

Report abstract:

On 16 September 2006 at 0038 Western Standard Time, an Airbus Industrie A330 landed on runway 21 at Perth Airport in weather conditions that were below the applicable landing minima. The aircraft, registered VH-QPJ, was being operated in accordance with the instrument flight rules (IFR) on a scheduled passenger flight from Singapore to Perth, WA.

Before departure from Singapore, the aerodrome forecast (TAF) for Perth Airport predicted a 30% probability of fog after 0200. The aircraft was due at Perth at 0020 so in accordance with the operator’s fuel policy; fuel was not specifically carried for a diversion from the destination to an alternate aerodrome. While the aircraft was in cruise, the TAF was revised to forecast fog from 2400, but the trend type forecasts (TTF) which superseded the TAF trended fog from 0030.

At about 2350, when the flight crew commenced descent, the aircraft passed the point where it had the fuel to divert to Learmonth, WA. About 10 minutes later, the TTF was amended to forecast fog to occur before the aircraft’s arrival time. The fog occurred at about 0015. The crew attempted two Instrument Landing System (ILS) approaches before they used autoland to land on runway 21 in weather conditions that were below the prescribed landing minima for the ILS

The ILS at Perth (and other Australian airports) was approved to the Category I standard that did not allow landings where the visibility was less than 800 m. The Perth runway 21 ILS glide path critical area was not fully protected from multipath effects during low visibility operations.

Perth and Learmonth were the only aerodromes in Western Australia that could be classified as suitable for the A330, and Learmonth was 599 NM (1,110 km) from Perth.

As a result of this occurrence, the operator implemented an interim flight planning fuel policy specifically for Perth.

This report confirms that the flight was not carrying enough fuel for the alternative landing site at Learmonth by the time it arrived at Perth. In fact it states that the plane passed the point where they had enough fuel to divert before they even reached Perth.

So the flight crew had to commit to a destination not knowing for certain if the runway would be usable on arrival, but relying on the probability that it would be usable when they had information that at some time the probability was that the runway would in fact become unusable due to fog.

Bloody big gamble IMHO. This appears to me to be reckless flying in the extreme.

Prudence demands that enough fuel be carried to maintain a holding pattern at the original destination for some time AND to divert to an alternative after that.

I don't trust an airline which is willing to gamble the safety of passengers against the vagaries of the weather. Eventually the weather will win. Qantas has obviously learnt nothing from the golf course excursion in Bangkok some years ago when another gamble with the weather was taken and Qantas lost. Luckily on that occassion nobody was killed.

What the hel_l is going on at Qantas ? Makes me rethink who I'll be flying with in future.

A little parinoid are you? What did you do on your secod trip?

Not really paranoid, just careful.

All through this episode I didn't know if indeed my suitcase had been opened therefore I didn't know if it had been unlocked through the baggage handling system. If the locks had been forced to open it this would be obvious so any contraband if present could be plausibly explained to customs as the forced locks were evidence to support my story. If the suitcase had been opened without damaging the locks and left unlocked then there would be no evidence to support my story and customs would attribute any contraband to me. It would then be get locked up first and answer questions later.

This is not so far fetched. Schapelle Corby is doing 20 years in prison in Bali for importing marijuana which she claimed was planted in her baggage. Baggage handlers at Sydney airport were recently convicted of being part of a cocaine smuggling ring using passenger's baggage to ship drugs around. It's not so far fetched and I'd guess that there are a number of people in jails around the world who have been convicted for drug offences which they did not knowingly commit.

If I'd said nothing all through this episode what evidence would there be for me to deny involvement if drugs were found ? I realise that the simple locks on most suicases are no real deterrent to pilfering or planting of contraband, however I'd prefer not to offer an "open" invitation as it were.

Happened to be in the US when George W decided to invade Iraq. restrictions on checked baggage immediately came into force. I was flying from Charlotte, NC to Sydney with United Airlines routed through Washington DC and Los Angeles. While in the toilet at the departure gate in Charlotte my name was called over the intercom. I went to the gate counter but they started boarding the flight so I never found out why I was paged. On the plane I asked why I was paged and was told it was probably because my checked in baggage was locked and may have been forced open for inspection. The law requiring all checked bags to be unlocked to permit inspection was only new. Naturally I was concerned about the possibility of pilfering, but of more concern was the customs declaration I had to make on arrival in Sydney. I didn't want to arrive to find a few kilos of drugs in my suitcase (ask Schapelle Corby about that).

I told the cabin crew that I had to know if indeed my suitcase had been forced open and if it had I wanted something in writing from the airline explaining this and lastly I wanted to know who was responsible for any damage to the suitcase. After departing the Charlotte terminal building we sat on the taxiway for an hour because the air traffic control system for the north-eastern US crashed and no takeoff clearances were being given so arrival in Washington DC was delayed. Passengers literally had to run to make the LA flight so no time for me to inquire about my baggage. I did ask the cabin crew on this flight but they could not provide any information and told me to ask at LA.

Had about 2-3 hours layover at LA so set about finding some answers from UA staff. First guy I asked couldn't seem to understand why I needed to know about my suitcase even after I explained to him that I had to make a custom's declaration and that the law deemed that the contents of the suitcase belonged to me. He fobbed me off to the airport security staff saying that baggage screening was not UA's responsibility and that thie security guys could give me a document saying my bag had been searched. Off I went on my own to find the security guys who can help me. Eventually having located some of these guys they told me there was no such document they could provide to me so back I went to UA. Couldn't find the first UA guy I spoke with so went to the UA's general information counter in the terminal. Nobody here could help me either...couldn't confirm if my suitcase had been opened (didn't really expect them to know anything in LA since it had happened in Charlotte) so was requesting a document or letter from UA explaining that my suitcase may have travelled unlocked from Charlotte to Sydney due to US airport security procedures. They were sympathetic but not helpful.

Next I went to the UA counter at the boarding gate. It was now about 90 minutes to departure. No help here either and they told me to go back to the UA inquiries counter. While waiting to see the staff again the first UA guy I spoke to on arrival in LA turns up with 2 LAPD officers and accuses me of harassing UA staff. The UA guy asks the LAPD guys to arrest me under some airport security law or something. All through since Charlotte I remained polite with the UA staff and had not been abusive or threatening in any way. The LAPD guys pulled me aside and I explained to them the situation regarding the declaration I had to make in Sydney. They understood my concern immediately and took me back to the airport security guys to see if there was some sort of document I could get since the UA staff still denied their responsibility for anything. I was releived when the LAPD assured me they would not arrest me as I had done nothing wrong. So there remained the problem of the document I needed from UA (the police agreed UA had to provide something).

With my LAPD escort and a by now large gathering of UA staff we summoned UA's terminal manager who turned up promptly. Even with the LAPD supporting my argument the bitch of a manager refused to budge and accommodate my request in any way. UA staff told me I would have no problems on arrival in Sydney because the whole world had been informed of the changes to US airport security procedures. Sure I thought. By now having the terminal manager involved and the LAPD as witness to the events the need for a document from UA wasn't really necessary any more. If there was a kilo of cocaine in my suitcase by the time it arrived in Sydney I could credibly say I had raised the possibility while in the US as a defence. However, due to the callous and indifferent treatment by UA staff I decided to press my case.

It was now about 30 minutes to departure. I told the UA terminal manager that unless I had a document signed by her I was not boarding the flight to Sydney. Of course my suitcase was already loaded on the flight, along with all the other cargo. If I wasn't on the flight my baggage would have to be found and unloaded guaranteeing a delay deoarture of at least an hour. I had the bitch now. Still it took another 10 minutes of arguing before she relented and agreed to give me a handwritten note stating that my suitcase may have been opened in Charlotte (problem was in Charlotte that the check in staff forgot to tell me or check that the suitcase was unlocked) and accepting responsibility if it had been damaged. All this time I was being flanked by the LAPD guys and the whole discussion had taken place amongst the rows of seats and waiting passengers at the departure gate. I can only guess that my fellow passengers must have regarded me as a potential terrorist. Can only wonder how they felt when I boarded the plane.

The flight from LA to sydney was uneventful. I had the letter from UA and the LAPD's business cards so I felt ok. I decided that on arrival, when filling out the customs declaration I would declare "yes" to all the prohibited items...do I have illegal drugs - yes, do I have guns or other weapons - yes, do I have plant and animal products -- yes, do I have protected species and wildlife - yes......just ticked yes to everything (is says if in doubt to tick yes). Once you've ticked "no" there's no going back. Should have seen the look on the immigration officer's face when they read the custom's declaration....at least they could see the funny side of it...she said "have fun with customs" as she stamped me in.

Custom's were more than a little curious about someone ticking yes to everything so I told them the story and asked if they were indeed aware that everyone doing any dometic flights within the US was now flying around with unlocked baggage. She said they had not been told and was in fact very concerned at the prospect (and rightly so). Anyway I explained that since I did not now know what was in my suitcase I wanted it inspected thoroughly by customs. The locks on the suitcase had in fact been damaged when forced open. The customs officer agreed that I had done the right thing all along and that had I not and some contraband was discovered I would have been in jail while the whole mess was sorted out or possibly charged with an offence.

Later I claimed the cost of re[airs to the suitcase from UA. They tried to deny responsibility saying it was the fault of airport security. It wasn't until the company I worked for who used UA for travel world wide intervened that I got my refund from them. Postscript to the story is that exactly 2 weeks later I was again returning from the US on the same flight through LA. I spied the UA terminal manager, walked over and asked "remember me ?" She said yes. I asked if, given all the inconvenience UA had caused me previously and threatening to have me arrested, if she would upgrade me. The cold bitch just stared at me.

all well and good that the aircraft could still land in the foggy conditions. But what if the runway became unusable or damaged in some way ? The pilots must have had other options but if exercised would have inconvenienced passengers.

Sorry, I refuse to believe the pilots only had one option for landing.

in the case of pre-meditated rape the threat of castration may just mean that more planning is done to avoid being caught. In the case of spontaneous rape I doubt the threat of castration will have much deterrent effect, especially if drugs or alcohol are involved as they often are. The deterrent effect depends on a rational thought process. Where drugs or alcohol are involved the rational thought process is severely diminished therefore so is the deterrent effect.

do you really think Thais will appreciate nosey farangs getting involved in things which are none of their business, regardless of the need to do so or the best intentions ?

what evidence is there that castration prevents rape other than not being physically able ? If someone cut off my old fella I'd be pretty upset and may be more inclined to take out retribution on society for the loss suffered.

Maybe she's always holding my hand to make sure I don't run off with anyone else.

I can't stop her from holding my hand....not that I'd really want to anyway.

had one idiot pulled out into the side of me on Sukhumvit Road near Pattaya about 8:00pm one night. The guy then proceeds to drive off as if nothing had happened. I forced him to stop then when I got out and he saw I was a farang he started to assault me. Called the police and when they arrived he turned out to the the idiot driver's friend. As you might expect the police did absolutely nothing.

I havent been to Seoul, but for me Singapore beats HK for two key reasons. Proximity and accessibility, first. I know HK has the express train, but it still usually needs a taxi to get you to a downtown hotel, whereas Changi is just so simple (and occasionally you get lucky and score one of those mercedes taxis). The second reason is immigration. It's very very rare that there isnt a long (albeit well-managed) queue at HK. I don't recall every queuing at Changi.

Plus, Changi has a homelier feel?

OHare and Heathrow. Holy shit. Having used both in the past few months, I'd rate Manila over them, and that's saying something.

Don't tell me visitors get mugged in taxis they take from the airport in the UK now as well.

it appears from the way the fraud was carried out (if indeed fraud is proved) that the government officials are not "the ones defrauded" but were complicit in the perpetration of the fraud and without their involvement the fraud could not have been committed.

If indeed fraud is proved then those at the Revenue Department and elsewhere are probably as guilty as hel_l. May the full force of the law come to bear.

There must be a lot of scared civil servants in Thailand right now.

Actually no. Not even the AEC has suggested those at the Rev. Dept were involved in the fraud (in my opinion it was a fraud and I am certain it will be proven as such). In fact, according to the AEC, the taxes weren't even due to be paid until several years later, but the Rev. Dept heads at that time did nothing to rectify the error in judgment (if was an error in judgment - it appears to be). Errors in judgment should not, in my opinion, lead to criminal malfeasance charges as they have for Sirote, but not for the heads of the Rev. Dept when the taxes should have been paid.

Remember, Sirote was acting head of the Rev. Dept. and putting his signature in support of his legal department was one of the very first orders of business that came his way. Where I come from, you support your people when you have no reason to believe they are involved in anything illegal and no reason to believe they are wrong. His signing this document has led to his being charged with criminal malfeasance. This issue is one of those issues where there is a whole lot more than meets the eye.

It's probably a cse of the legislation being unclear and a determination could possibly have been made either way at the time.

The question is whether undue influence was used to end up with the decision which was made.

If the court decides that the law was in fact ambiguous and a decision could have been made either way then the malfeasance charge probably won't stand scrutiny because of the element of doubt.

On the other hand, if the court decides that a very long bow has to be drawn to make the policy fit the decision made then malfeasance is definitely justified.

Many posted which I agree with but really enjoyed Kath & Kim, ABC (Australia).

i dunno, Kath & Kim never did it for me, although I liked their work in the "comedy company" & "fast forward" all those years back.

The Glasshouse on ABC was probably the best Australian comedy ive seen.

I think The Big Gig (Wendy Harmer before she went commercial) did it better before The Glasshouse, but I enjoyed it too.

Many posted which I agree with but really enjoyed Kath & Kim, ABC (Australia).

Edit: Just remembered a classic from the past....the "Doctor" series (Doctor in the House, Doctor in Charge, Doctor at Large, etc.)

Mother & Son is another classic.

I like HK becuase it's so well done.....but the rooftop swimming pool and bar at Changi makes it #1 for me.

are you kidding.....just take a couple of bar girls back to your room and if you're lucky you'll end up with a long sleep.......but it could prove to be a little expensive.

neither.......IBM or pen and paper.