Descendants of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr are Friends

In 1804, Vice President Aaron Burr killed former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in a duel. They were bitter enemies, but that's not an issue for their descendants, Alexandra Hamilton Woods and Antonio Burr.

Woods is the great great great great great ganddaughter of Hamilton. Antonio Burr is a descendant of a cousin of Aaron Burr. Both are psychologists in New York City. They met by chance several years ago and found a mutal interest in kayaking and canoeing. Now the pair paddle around together as members of the Inwood Canoe Club of Manhattan. The New York Post quotes Hamilton's descendant:

“I used to tease him about our respective history,” Hamilton Woods says. “We’ve had a number of interesting conversations. But I have great fondness and respect for Antonio.”

Both of them are members and officers in their canoe club. Although they sometimes have disagreements, they resolve them without bloodshed:

The two friends now find themselves in their own political situation. Hamilton Woods sits on the Inwood Canoe Club board as treasurer, and Burr is the president emeritus. They might have the occasional disagreement, but they settle things peacefully.

“We do a lot of negotiating,” says Hamilton Woods. “But he and I find ourselves usually on the same side.”

-via Jonah Goldberg


Comments (0)

Hmmm. Color me an idiot, but I thought that if the power was coming from thrust at the tips of the rotors (instead of from a powered axle), there was no need for a tail fan for counter rotation...
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The tail rotor would be needed for yaw (turning left and right). A normal helicopter needs a tail rotor to constantly fight the counter-rotation from the main rotor; this helicopter would need a tail rotor to make it turn left or right.

It appears to be geared with the main rotor, but is likely pitched such that it doesn't provide any thrust to the left or right during flight. When the pilot wants to turn, he pitches the tail rotor blades to provide thrust.

If the tail rotor failed, the helicopter would be just fine, although it would have no ability to turn on its emergency descent.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@ strayxray

actually it would start to spin uncontrollably with out the tail rotor, just because there is no powered axle between the main rotor and the main body of the helicopter doesn't mean that the friction from the rotor and where it is connected to the body isn't enough to cause it to start spinning. We don't live in a world with frictionless bearings. Also the fuel delivery system to the rockets probably add's a lot more friction to the main rotors axle.

It might not happen as quickly and violently as a normal heli would if it lost it's rotor, but if he were high enough, by the time he got the heli to the ground he could be spinning like a tea cup.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Every action gives re-action. So the main body of the chopper will rotate in the oppsite direction of the main rotor. Don't forget that there is a fuelline-coupling from the main body to the rotorblades that gives added friction. So the tailfan is needed.

I like the noise of that thing- While most chopperbuilders work frantically on reducing or even cancelling the noise of their rotorblades as best as they can to make their choppers more useable in crowded areas, these guys come up with a system that wakes up the whole valley when they start up their machine. :-D
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
This concept is not exactly new. In the 1950s a Dutch company built 11 Kolibri's (Hummingbirds):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jhpUJLhQfs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlandse_Helikopter_Industrie_(NHI)
And an American prototype:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YH-32_Hornet

All designs failed...
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
With torque the entire force generated by the engine gets split between the rotor and the body of the helicopter.

The difference with friction as a force is two fold. First, obviously, is that it would be in the direction of the rotors, not the opposite direction. Second, we're talking an incredibly small amount of the output of the engine being transferred via friction (easily as low as .01%). Third, it takes much more energy to spin the heavier body of the helicopter than the rotors.

So it would take very, very little to cancel it out.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
this is right on it...Every action gives re-action. So the main body of the chopper will rotate in the oppsite direction of the main rotor. Don't forget that there is a fuelline-coupling from the main body to the rotorblades that gives added friction. So the tailfan is needed.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
hey guys....stop thinking like a regular heli...the trust created by the jets is the prim factor of this equation....the blades move in an opposit direction to the exiting energy from the jet....the body of the vehicle, thru drag, will tend to follow the directions the blades are rotating in...the speed at witch the vehicle travels depends on the friction present at the rotor bearins and the vehicle mass that is presented to the air around it..ie...if there is a lot of friction the heli will turn quicker but if the was a huge flat panel sitting flush to the direction it is rotating in then it would tend to act as an air brake and slow down the action of rotation in proportion to its size.....space travel is marvelous...time travel is quicker....zorro
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 0 comments
Email This Post to a Friend
"Descendants of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr are Friends"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More