DoubleMint

@WarMonitor3 Why don't they use the Van Ripper light speed motorcycles?

Iran has informed ceasefire negotiators that orders of a ceasefire may take a while to reach lower level IRGC units.

@a_ali_alqasemi This wreckage is from an F-15E from the 494th. The red stripe is unique to the Black Panthers. Valkyrie F-35s have a no colored stripe.

⭕ توضيح مهم بخصوص حطام طائرة F-35 التي اسقطتها ايران قبل قليل ..... هناك جدل كبير بين المحللين والمهتمين في تحديد نوع الطائرة التي اسقطتها ايران قبل قليل، فالبعض يتداول صور حطام الطائرة ويقول انهُ لطائرة F-15E ، والبعض الآخر يقول بأنهُ لطائرة F-35 ، لكن بعد التدقيق في الصور، أستطيع أن أثبت لكم بشكل قاطع أن الحطام يعود لطائرة F-35A ،واليكم الادلة التي تثبت ذلك: أولاً: شعار السرب الظاهر على الذيل يعود بوضوح إلى السرب 495 المقاتل (Valkyries)، وهذا السرب معروف بأنه يُسيّر طائرات F-35A حصراً منذ إعادة تفعيله في 2021، ولا يمتلك أي طائرة F-15E. ثانياً: إحدى قطع الحطام مكتوب عليها تحذير NOT-MAGNETIC (غير مغناطيسي) بجانب كلمة FASTENERS (أدوات التثبيت) ، وهذا النوع من التحذيرات موجود بكثرة على أجزاء F-35 المصنوعة من مواد مركبة لأغراض التخفي، بينما لا تجده على طائرة F-15E التقليدية. ثالثاً: شكل القطعة مع سهم يشير إلى (UP) وعبارة (THIS END AFT) يطابق تماماً تصميم مدخل الهواء المميز لطائرة F-35، والذي لا يوجد في F-15E. رابعاً: الرمز (LF)على الحطام يدل على : (قاعدة لاكنهيث الجوية الملكية البريطانية - RAF Lakenheath) ، وهي القاعدة الرئيسية للسرب 495 وطائراته من F-35A. الخلاصة: بناءً على الشعار والتحذيرات غير المغناطيسية وتصميم مدخل الهواء، أستطيع القول بثقة أن الحطام يعود لطائرة F-35A. أي حديث عن F-15E غير صحيح تماماً، والأدلة في الصور المرفقة، ومن لديه اعتراض فليتفضل بدليل مضاد ينقض ما اثبتته. ..... وشكراً💚

@andrelucas @elonmusk 🙋

@elonmusk Has *anyone* got this joke?

Some might call this a cunning move 😉

@TeamTrackhouse @RossChastain @BuschBeer 🍻

Who (21+) wants to win a @RossChastain autographed @BuschBeer cowboy hat? 🤠   Repost this and reply using 🍻, we’ll select 1️⃣ winner.

@F1Techy Merc would make a plasma engine just to get around the states of matter rule.

Looking for new PU regulations for 2027. That is for sure. And the first change will be No cylinder of the engine may have a geometric compression ratio higher than 16:1, at any time, any dimension any state, cold, hot, liquid form or even gas.

@SportmphMark @Weirwood522 @SpannersReady Interesting. Is that 17.3:1 a static measurement at operating temperature, or a dynamic ratio with the valve train in operation?

@DoubleMint0341 @Weirwood522 @SpannersReady When engines heat up the CR decreases (normally) because the block expands more than the con rod. Typically 16:1 static CR will fall to about 15.1/15.2 in operation. The old PUs with static 18:1 ran about 17.3:1 in operation.

Question for the people that think this Mercedes engine situation isn't a cheat (based on public info): If the compression ratio is ALWAYS 18:1 but there is part of the engine or a device that convinces the test that the ratio is 16:1, would that change your mind?

@Weirwood522 @SpannersReady If every engine supplier designed an engine with an ambient 16:1 CR, it's a fair bet that not only the Merc exceeds 16:1 at operating temp. I don't see an engine being designed lower than 16:1 to account for thermal expansion that won't be tested.

@SpannersReady I had to look up the regulation as written to come to the conclusion that it's cheating: C5.4.3 No cylinder of the engine may have a geometric compression ratio higher than 16.0. It's pretty clear that if you're over that then you're in violation.

@SpannersReady A) If it's thermal expansion of a piston or rod, the engine is compliant per the current ruleset. B) If there is a pocket in the combustion chamber that seals off at operating temperature, that is a cheat. Option A is a 16:1 ratio that grows. Option B is always higher than 16:1.

@Gerbil_Horde @SpannersReady You're hitting the nail on the head. The F1 verbiage in the rulebook is "geometric CR" which is a simple BDC volume vs TDC volume measurement. In actual competition, the FIA would have to measure dynamic CR which is complicated by valve timing.

@SpannersReady I think you might misunderstand what compression ratio is. It’s simple mathematics derived from a volume at TDC and volume at BDC. There is no trick here, you can calculate it from drawings. The “trick” is clever expansion in a chosen direction at temperature to raise TDC #🐹

@Scuderiascoop Are you saying Ferrari's engine has a lower than 16:1 geometric compression ratio designed to heat up and expand to 16:1 at operating temperature, or do their components just not expand as much as Mercs? I'd wager that every F1 engine exceeds 16:1 when hot.

The outrage is selective. Ferrari's 2019 fuel-flow trick and Mercedes' compression adjustments both operated in the sensor's blind spots. It's the same tactic. Calling one illegal and the other innovative is pure hypocrisy.

@SpannersReady Even my road going car will increase the compression ratio from ambient to operating temps. I'd wager that if all the engine manufacturers designed a 16:1 geometric compression ratio, they all exceed that when at temp. Merc just exceeds it more.

Mercedes haven’t accidently exceeded the compression ratio have they? They've absolutely 100% deliberately spent a lot of time and money on a way to defeat the test and have a higher ratio than the rules allow. They on purpose made an engine that is againt a specific rule

@JohnRoskruge @MotorsportiveHQ Every engine would have to be redesigned. Every engine is going to increase compression ratio from ambient to operating temp. Merc and RB just increases more than the others.

@MotorsportiveHQ If this is true Mercedes and Red Bull will need to redesign their engines. As a result, they will miss most if not all of the season.

@SolBrudda @MotorsportiveHQ But every engine, even the one in your road going car, has a higher compression ratio at operating temperature than at ambient temperature. So the Ferrari, RB, Merc, Honda, etc, all exceeded the 16:1 ratio when hot. Merc and RB just exceeded it more than the others.

@MotorsportiveHQ I don't get why everyone is mad at this? Mercedes were exploiting a loophole and had an unfair advantage. Did you really want to see another team dominating again?

@MAC_Arms The right to arms is God given and outside the jurisdiction of any government. The Bill of Rights does not give me the permission to be armed, it forbids the government from taking my arms. All gun laws are infringement.

I’m a 2A purist. Every American has the right to own arms. There isn’t a political ideology mandate. With that said, commies that want to burn the constitution and subjugate you are arming themselves. Are you ok with enemies of the constitution arming themselves?

@shilohlukich @TDPatriot1 @MsEntropy CBP has legal jurisdiction anywhere in the US. The 100 mile zone only includes external boundaries but grants expanded powers they do not have outside of the border zone.

@TDPatriot1 @MsEntropy Oh your gonna HATE this Border Patrol has legal authority 100 miles from any international border in the United States. This also includes ALL ports of entry and international airports. TLDR: yes they can.

These guys aren’t ICE. They’re much worse: CBP, and judging from the patches — BORTAC. BORTAC is a Special Ops / counterterrorism tactical unit of CBP. What the actual NSPM-7 holy FUCK.

Looks like it stopped transponding off the coast of Guyana and Venezuela.

Looks like Exxon Mobil is headed to Puerto Rico. N285EM. Any connection to US Oil getting evolved in Venezuela?

@DeItaone @RealestMercury An Exxon Mobil jet, N285EM, seems to be enroute to Puerto Rico at the moment. Any connection?

VENEZUELA'S MAIN OIL TERMINALS HAVE NOT DELIVERED CRUDE FOR EXPORT, OTHER THAN TO U.S. CHEVRON, IN FIVE DAYS -SHIPPING DATA

@catturd2 Hey Catturd. I don't have the reach you do, but you might find it interesting that N285EM, owned by Exxon Mobil, seems to be headed to Puerto Rico.

Breaking … A former McDonald’s worker just liberated Venezuela.

@konstructivizm This image is not from Antarctica. This is an infrared image of the area around the Pyramid of Khendjer in Egypt.

??? Global warming is gradually removing Antarctica's ice cap, revealing its surface to researchers and NASA satellites. On the southernmost continent, a strange formation of apparently artificial origin has been discovered. While other traces resembled ancient riverbeds, this one looks more like the structure of a settlement – ​​the distinct square shapes and branching passages suggest that the continent's glaciation occurred not as recently as scientists previously believed. We're talking thousands of years, rather than millions. Otherwise, we'll have to admit that traces of human activity could have appeared millions of years ago.