|
Mo_Steel posted:I used to work at a grocery store, and on the busier holidays you go through Coke and Pepsi products at insane volumes, so much so that there wasn't enough racking to store it in. And so it would be stacked on the floor of the backroom right in front of the full, 3 level racking of pop, typically reaching about 5-6 full pallets tall. I was always morbidly curious about what the PSI of pressure on the bottom set of cans must have been and what they can hold before crumpling. I also recall seeing pallets of softener salt stored in the very top of 3 level racking, and at roughly 2,000 lbs. I imagine if that fell on you you'd either die instantly or wish you had. When I worked at the Beer store over the summer, we regularly stacked pallets of cans 3 high right before long weekends. 
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
Evilreaver posted:I've always wondered what happened after that. Do they write everything off as lost? Do they have some guys sort out the destroyed stuff from the damaged stuff from the "we can still sell it" stuff? How long did it take them to dig the driver out? From what I understand, the value of 'this stuff organized on a pallet' is way higher than the value of 'this stuff in a pile' even if it's totally intact. The amount of manpower needed to take a non-palletized pile of cans from a truck to a grocery store is just immense in comparison So if they're smart, they looked at it, said 'we sure as hell aren't paying our workers little enough for sorting this to be profitable', called a local food shelter and said 'you can have it all, just take it', and wrote it off their taxes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:From what I understand, the value of 'this stuff organized on a pallet' is way higher than the value of 'this stuff in a pile' even if it's totally intact. The amount of manpower needed to take a non-palletized pile of cans from a truck to a grocery store is just immense in comparison It would probably take a guy about 10 minutes per pallet to re-stack and wrap those boxes though, and they aren't going to clean it up by using a bulldozer to shove it into a semi-trailer so they probably just had a bunch of guys work a few extra hours. "Damaged stuff goes on the top so the pallets don't collapse again."
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Or the company puts in an insurance claim to cost of the goods and any potential lost earnings and the insurance company then takes ownership of all the stock, pays people to clean up the mess and then sells whatever is salvageable to try and offset the cleanup cost. One of the ways those dollar shops get the big brand on the shelves for a fraction of the cost is by buying it from insurance companies for pennies on the dollar in those situations. Rudager fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
It probably depends on how much appears to be damaged. The insurance company doesn't want to buy a bunch of sell-able merchandise just because its no longer neatly stacked nor does the store want to accept what is probably a reduced value from the insurance company if there's nothing wrong with most of it. I have a friend that almost had this happen at the Lowe's he used to work at. Some guy in Lumber had an area blocked off (with a spotter) so he could run a bunch of pallets of concrete from someplace, around the corner, and put it into top-stock. He gets to the last pallet and someone has placed one of the big flat carts in his path, which he didn't notice because the pallet he had on the forks was blocking his view. So he pushes the cart into an upright for a rack hard enough to rip it out of the floor and now the whole rack (and a bunch of pallets of concrete) is leaning over the aisle. After Lumber-Guy stopped panicking, he grabbed my friend and they had to spend the rest of the evening pulling every pallet down in that aisle so the racking wouldn't collapse. He didn't get out until well after midnight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
cyberbug posted:This gold processing method does not seem to be entirely safe. Does anyone know what show this was or have an alternate link? It's been deleted from youtube.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 12:40
|
|
|
DONT CARE BUTTON posted:Does anyone know what show this was or have an alternate link? It's been deleted from youtube. I believe it was Welcome to India, episode 1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I believe it was Welcome to India, episode 1. Thanks! A true goon you are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
Yeeessss I love this picture. Awhile back at work we were installing a pretty large motor and they brought it in on the largest forklift I ever saw. (I think the motor weighed over 10 tons.) I think larger than the bottom one shown there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
I'd never bothered to think about what they're doing longer than "picking up a forklift with a forklift is retarded", but what are the two suspended guys even doing? The guy on the back probably thinks he's adding (a trivial amount of) counterweight, but the second guy looks like he's reaching for the controls to do what? Side-shift? Just lift the load as high as it goes and then get off and let the other forklift driver move it into place. Just think of all the money they saved by not buying a forklift with a telescoping mast that could reach 2 or 3 times as high!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5JgnMJzCtQ
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
It sounds like a swarm of bees!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Anyone within 5 miles must have wanted to loving kill him for that much noise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
loving loud, but I'd totally want one. This is like those blueprints you could buy in the back of comic books from the 70s and 80s to "build a working hovercraft!" Manually controlling that thing looks like a nightmare. Time to add another audrino with some accelerometers to assist in maintaining trim and smoothing out the prop acceleration. And maybe an altimeter to give yourself a flight ceiling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
flosofl posted:loving loud, but I'd totally want one. This is like those blueprints you could buy in the back of comic books from the 70s and 80s to "build a working hovercraft!" They went to the trouble and weight of providing a wrap-around windscreen... ...And made it mostly-opaque. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:They went to the trouble and weight of providing a wrap-around windscreen... I think its an umbrella.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
It would be a shame if one of those rotors threw a blade.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
It's not a loving drone if it's loving manned
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It would be a shame if one of those rotors threw a blade. I figure that's what the umbrella is there for. But yeah and it's gonna be a extra-special shame the first time one of those little plastic drinky-straw compressive members buckles and the whole structure and all 54 fans just crumples right up into a ball around the pilot's noggin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Code Jockey posted:That's cool Aside from the lack of helmet and eye protection I'm not a fan of the giant unguarded side blade myself. Also, the crazy giant rotating blade hedge trimmer posted earlier in the thread caused remarkably little comment. A casting/forging failure or it hitting something harder than expected could cause a wonderful range of metal to spray out over the plane of rotation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Wouldn't one large rotor work better than all those small ones? Then maybe a smaller, vertical rotor on the back to control the spin. You could also probably sit inside an enclosed cockpit. I think I might be on to something here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It would be a shame if one of those rotors threw a blade. That's why he has the "umbrella" around his head; it's an anti-decapitation anti-rain of propeller shards umbrella. gently caress, beaten like a union rep at a mafia job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:Wouldn't one large rotor work better than all those small ones? Then maybe a smaller, vertical rotor on the back to control the spin. You could also probably sit inside an enclosed cockpit. Nah that'll never take off. Tunicate posted:I think its an umbrella. I actually wonder how much it does to deflect the noise
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:Wouldn't one large rotor work better than all those small ones? Then maybe a smaller, vertical rotor on the back to control the spin. You could also probably sit inside an enclosed cockpit. Why stop there? We could have four rotors, and a balloon, and tie it all together with... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jENWKgMPY Oh nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Bondematt posted:Why stop there? Did they... add goofy crashing and siren sound effects to that video? lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
xezton posted:Did they... add goofy crashing and siren sound effects to that video? lol Thats what I thought too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
flosofl posted:loving loud, but I'd totally want one. This is like those blueprints you could buy in the back of comic books from the 70s and 80s to "build a working hovercraft!" That thing isn't entirely manual--from the description: " six grouped control channels with KK2.15 stabilization". The KK2.15 is a multirotor flight controller that has an 8-bit microprocessor (one which is not dissimilar to the one in an arduino) and a 6-axis gyroscope + accelerometer. The flight controller has two purposes: 1. To take the inputs from a radio receiver, and "mix" the control channels to the motor outputs. So, increasing value on the throttle channel will increase the speed of all motors, increasing the pitch will increase the speed of the motors on one side and decrease the speed of those on the opposite side, and so on. In this case, he has connected the motor controllers together into 6 groups, allowing the flight controller to be setup for a hexcopter configuration (without having to worry about all of the individual motors). 2. Flight stabilization. While airplanes (with the exception of like certain stealth aircraft) are stable above their stall speeds. This holds true for RC planes as well (or at least it does until you get into weird 3d planes, or at least those with thrust-vectoring and no lift generation). A lot of types of RC helicopters are not stable, however, in their yaw axis--if a gust of wind makes them start spinning, they won't resist this motion. Additionally, increasing the rotor speed of a helicopter will increase the torque and make it start rotating, requiring constant supervision to counteract this. RC helicopters solve this using a gyro to detect changes in rotational velocity on the yaw axis, and counteract this by changing the speed of the tail rotor. Multirotors are just as bad--they arent not stable on any axis. Trying to fly a quadcopter without stabilization (especially smaller ones) can be extremely difficult, and you need to contintually correct back and forth to keep it from flipping on a random axis. What the flight controller does is use feedback provided by the accelerometers and gyros as the input to a PID controller (or PID controllers) which will either maintain the quadcopter at a fixed orientation, or with fixed rotational velocities, or keep it mostly level and at the same altitude in order to simplify controlling it. So, yeah, this guy is very much not flying this thing manually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:That thing isn't entirely manual--from the description: " six grouped control channels with KK2.15 stabilization". The KK2.15 is a multirotor flight controller that has an 8-bit microprocessor (one which is not dissimilar to the one in an arduino) and a 6-axis gyroscope + accelerometer. So that's either as good as it gets, or he needs to step up his control algorithms and task grouping. Because that looked like he was making his own micro corrections and the acceleration ramped up way too fast in my opinion (the part were he nearly took off for parts unknown). I will say, I'm not a pilot so I'm willing to accept that rotary wings in general require micro corrections from the pilot. If that's that actually the case, then the attitude control is probably as good as it will get. But that acceleration of the rotors seemed pretty steep. Proteus Jones fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Sep 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
flosofl posted:So that's either as good as it gets, or he needs to step up his control algorithms and task grouping. Because that looked like he was making his own micro corrections and the acceleration ramped up way too fast in my opinion (the part were he nearly took off for parts unknown). The controller probably isn't tuned properly--normally the controller gains and limits are set during a series of test flights. Those micro corrections may at least partially be due to oscillations from the PID controller (which he might be manually trying to counteract, mostly with success) Slanderer fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Sep 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Regardless, he's not very good at driving it (my favorite part was when he got too high, cut the throttle entirely, and then barely throttled back up in time to cancel his downward momentum). Why didn't he put in a receiver and some ballast so he could practice by remote, you know, like it was originally intended?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Actually, it looks like he did just that, and it's way more stable than in the early videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/gasturbine101/videos It says he used ballast weight, but I wonder if he used his full weight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Watching that video and thinking "maybe this is why Ospreys crashed so often."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
a helicopter's natural state is smashed in to the ground in a shitzillion pieces so yeah add two heli blades to a plane and you're begging for death
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
xezton posted:Did they... add goofy crashing and siren sound effects to that video? lol Almost all of the extreme videos/cop chases shows have been doing that for quite a while now. I recall seeing one about the PEPCON disaster where they dubbed in a explosion, you hear the cameraman go "that's gonna be loud!" and then you hear the actual explosion. It's really annoying. The British TV series Beyond 2000 did a short segment on the thing in 1985, a year before it crashed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9xPAm1Xo3Q Robo Reagan posted:a helicopter's natural state is smashed in to the ground in a shitzillion pieces so yeah add two heli blades to a plane and you're begging for death https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVLWRJoW-bM
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:Wouldn't one large rotor work better than all those small ones? Then maybe a smaller, vertical rotor on the back to control the spin. You could also probably sit inside an enclosed cockpit. A shitload of tiny rotors definitely isn't the most efficient or effective way to build a helicopter, it just happens to be the only one that's really accessible to hobbyists and small-time builders because the drone market supplies all the flight hardware, no ground-up design needed. Designing + manufacturing a proper helicopter from the ground up, with the additional task of designing and manufacturing a single large electric motor with the a high power/weight ratio + a custom battery setup, requires the resources of a large well-equipped company (Sikorsky did it with the Firefly, I can't think of any others). Whereas buying drone controllers/motors/powerpacks and just building a lightweight aluminium-strut frame to support it all is far more accessible and safe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:A shitload of tiny rotors definitely isn't the most efficient or effective way to build a helicopter, it just happens to be the only one that's really accessible to hobbyists and small-time builders because the drone market supplies all the flight hardware, no ground-up design needed. Designing + manufacturing a proper helicopter from the ground up, with the additional task of designing and manufacturing a single large electric motor with the a high power/weight ratio + a custom battery setup, requires the resources of a large well-equipped company (Sikorsky did it with the Firefly, I can't think of any others). Whereas buying drone controllers/motors/powerpacks and just building a lightweight aluminium-strut frame to support it all is far more accessible and safe. using the word 'safe' very loosely there I see
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
gender illusionist posted:using the word 'safe' very loosely there I see well yeah relatively speaking designing and testflying actual ultralight helicopters is, like, one of the most fuckin dangerous activities conceivable on any medium-long term timescale, whereas with drone parts reliability and serious issues have already been established and worked through by the drone nerd community, stabilization/flight-control software is very well-developed and essentially ready to use, and any mechanical failures in flight are (b/c of the scale) inherently going to be a lot less dangerous and catastrophic for all involved
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
RNG posted:Watching that video and thinking "maybe this is why Ospreys crashed so often." The osprey crashed less their whole lifespan than most other airframes like the F-18 lost in testing. The Marines are stupid and kept trying to shove Marines into test aircraft and got mad when they crashed, which is why they have a bad rap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
its outside the scope of tihs thraed but holy lmao the marines are so so dumb in all respects
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 15:43
|
|