Scram Sonic
December 6th, 2009 | 
Author: Scram Sonic
 |
 SOFA SCRAM SONIC PET MAT DOG CAT FURNITURE DETERRENT  US $22.38
|
 2 SCRAM PATROL SONIC ANIMAL CHASER GUN w LASER SIGHT US $31.92
|
 Sofa Scramâ„¢ Sonic Mat Trains Dogs and Cats to Scat US $39.95
|
 SCRAM PATROL SONIC ANIMAL REPELLER WITH LASER SIGHT US $19.45
|
 SONIC Animal Chaser TRAINER repels Dogs Cats Squirrels US $18.88
|
 Scram Patrol Sonic Animal Chaser US $18.00
|
 SOFA SCRAM SONIC PET MAT DOGS CATS SCAT MAT NEW US $31.77
|
 US Patrol Scram Patrol Sonic Animal Chaser US $18.36
|
 SCRAM PATROL ULTRA SONIC ANIMAL CHASER DOG DETERRENT US $17.50
|
 SCRAM PATROL SONIC ANIMAL CHASER GUN STOP ATTACK DOGS US $23.49
|
 SCRAM PATROL SONIC ANIMAL CHASER GUN LASER SIGHT LIGHT US $18.49
|
 scram patrol US $19.95
|
 2 ULTRA SONIC ANIMAL CHASER DETERRENT GUN LASER LIGHT US $37.69
|
 Radio Mat Additional Transmitter Pad US $69.95
|
 Radio Mat Electronic Scat Pad Kit US $129.95
|
 NEW SOFA SCRAM SONIC MAT DOG CAT PET REPELLENT US $22.45
|
 SOFA SCRAM SONIC MAT DOG CAT REPELLENT DETERRENT PET US $22.48
|
 SOFA SCRAM SONIC MAT DOG CAT PET REPELLENT NEW US $22.65
|
 Humane Contain Electronic Scat Pad with Radio Collar US $79.95
|
 2 SONIC Animal Chaser TRAINER repel Dogs Cats Squirrels US $35.88
|
 Scram Patrol Sonic Animal Chaser US $24.99
|
What is the next development in "long range" commercial aircraft?
I wonder, is a scram/ram jet airliner, that travels above the normal means of todays airliners, something of fiction, or are we close to this? It would seem if we could have such an aircraft able to take of and land at normal speeds, rapidily ascend to altitudes above the "sonic boom" noise envelope,it would be viable,cutting international times by 1/2? any thoughts? would love to hear from actual commerical aircraft drivers regarding training, problems etc. thanks
On paper, speed always appears attractive. Who wouldn't want to be able to fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo in 6 hours instead of 12?
But the lesson from the 1970s, with Concorde, is that no matter how much you'd like to halve the travel time, the average traveller won't pay for it. And while airlines make their money on the full-fare and first/business class travellers, they avoid losing it with the "discretionary" budget traveller. That may sound crazy, but if you want the profitable travellers, you need to have seats to sell them; since aircraft come in fixed sizes, you can rarely arrange to have exactly the right number of seats for the profitable passengers, so you'll generally have to have "spare" seats over and above the number you want. Flying an empty seat costs money, but flying a person in that seat only costs a little more. So selling a ticket at just more than the extra cost of flying a person actually reduces the loss.
The snag is that it always costs more to go faster than it does to plod along -- and the people who will pay the loss-reducing fare for the cheap flight will (typically) not pay the higher fare for the equivalent loss-reducing seat on the fast one. So the market for Concorde collapsed when fuel costs spiralled in the 1970s, and the 747 became the queen of the North Atlantic instead of the Concorde.
Added to that is the new wrinkle of environmental concerns. Faster aircraft will generate more pollution than slower ones (the normal trade-off of speed vs. efficiency). And noise pollution is another concern.
In short, I don't see anything exciting in terms of speed. I suspect the next iteration will combine the absolute efficiency of the Boeing 787 with the scale of the A380, to get an aircraft that burns less fuel and produces less pollution per passenger mile.
(Ericbryce's comments about the number of people on an A380 are off base, by the way, because the difference between a 747-400 and an A380 are negligible when you factor in the number of aisles: the A380 has two decks it's full length, so basically twice as many aisles. Further, the 747-400D in use in Japan regularly carry more than 500 people...)
Another issue with supersonic transport involves the altitudes; obviously, to reduce the noise footprint (and air friction) you need to get very high (again: Concorde flew above 50,000 feet). At those altitudes, losing cabin pressure is a big problem: the normal yellow supplemental oxygen masks don't work (well, they work, but you can't get enough oxygen from them). Concorde handled it by performing an emergency descent, but at some stage (70,000 ft? 90,000 ft?) you just can't get low enough fast enough...
What I do see happening, and what I think the next development will be, is a move towards pilotless aircraft. Maybe not initially totally pilotless, but e.g. long range aircraft with only two crew instead of the current three or four. The aircraft will be flown primarily from the ground, with the on-board pilots as backup and for flying in congested airspace during take-off and landing.
Posted in Pet Training Aids