Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gas blowers pollute which is the primary reason to ban them.
How many gas blowers do I have to run to be one Taylor Swift?
I love the idea of "one Taylor Swift" becoming a standard unit of measurement for pollution!
Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban
91–100 of 207 posts
Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s not accurate to convert .1 psf to dB because it’s an impulsive shape, not a continuous tone. And human loudness perception depends on how smooth (low frequency) the shape is Sorry can you explain more? It's just the definition of dB (?) And it's less impulsive than you imagine, go to youtube to listen to the sonic boom + continuous roar. The FAA has no criteria about the "texture" of the sound and there is no…
On a typical day, the atmospheric pressure varies by maybe 150 Pa, or 3 psf. By definition, that’s 137 dB. But it’s imperceptible because the rate of change is so low.
Obviously it is assumed we are talking about frequencies in the range of the audio spectrum (which a sonic boom is). Your point has nothing to do with the dB scale.
Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban
#93Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban
#94[flagged]
[flagged]
supersonic flight is not significantly faster than regular flight relative to other modes of transportation. it's not anti progress to be clear eyed out about tradeoffs and costs, especially when the negative side effects primarily don't affect the user of a product but everyone around them.
just because you want to blast your music out loud on a speaker in the subway and i think that's antisocial, doesn't mean i'm anti progress for music technology
Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban
#95[dead]
Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban
#96[dead]
Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban
#97The people speaking against this seem to be being flagged. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48742093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48742078 I do think this is ridiculously anti-social. Sonic booms are incredibly disruptive. This might be better, perhaps, but all odds are on this still shaking your house pretty significantly when it goes overhead.
I’m not seeing any real arguments in those comments. They shouldn’t be flagged. But they’re fine being downvoted for being reflexively, substancelessly critical in a cliched way.
Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to start somewhere before you can build towards an economy of scale that makes it affordable. If people used your same logic about regular airplanes, we wouldn't be using them today.
Supersonic flight will never be suitable for the masses compared to normal flight due to basic physics. It will always require much more expensive planes and more fuel. It's not more viable now wealth inequality just means that there are more rich people to benefit.
>Supersonic flight will never be suitable for the masses compared to normal flight due to basic physics. It will always require much more expensive planes and more fuel.
You could have used the exact same argument for normal flight 100 years ago. Supersonic flight being more expensive than normal flight doesn't mean it will always be too expensive for the masses unless you assume there'll be no more economic growth ever.
Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a substantial noise beyond the initial boom which is very loud even relative to the main boom. But even just a half second of a car horn going off right next to you every so often is intolerable.
People finding a way to tolerate what was previously considered intolerable is pretty much the story of civilization.
It's worth noting that the initial supersonic bans came as a result of sustained sonic boom testing over the same population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests
Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's 108 decibels. > I don't see how anyone will tolerate that in practice. Oh! Really? https://earinc.com/gunfire-noise-level-reference-chart/
...yes, really? Gun fire is indeed stupendously, dangerously loud, which is why we have suppressors and heavy hearing protection for them. And there are indeed significant public/legal fights around outdoor gun ranges that end up near habitation (even if it's not the range's fault at all but rather because construction moved towards it). So I'm not really seeing how that's an argument that people not wearing earpro w…
also, there are neighborhoods with extended amounts of gun violence and discharges and I can't say that the residents "don't mind it"