Raising your glass in a toast was common from ancient Greece to fairly recently, but appears to have fallen out of favor in the 21st century, outside of weddings. The group act of drinking in unison with a common thought is a way of bonding, of communicating a sentiment, and a ritual that should be brought back. To understand the reasons why, we need to look at the history of the toast. It has gone through a few changes while keeping the same basic form.
Indeed, amongst both the Greeks and Romans, toasting could not only serve as a declaration of well wishes (and an excuse for copious drinking!), but also a provocation — a challenge. Being able to hold one’s liquor was considered a form of toughness and discipline, and a night of toasting surely tested a man’s capaciousness. Just as the Greeks who pledged their drinks to the gods expected blessings in return for their sacrifice, toasts made to one’s fellow mortals were expected to be reciprocated. One toast would beget another, and back and forth the tributes went. With each, the vessel would have to be entirely drained of its intoxicating contents; as we’ll see, merely sipping one’s drink after a toast is a modern refinement. Thus, offering a toast was sometimes a way of throwing down the gauntlet — an invitation to competition and a kind of duel; could the others match you cup for cup? Unsurprisingly, a night of toasting frequently found participants passed out in a stupor by its end.
In later eras, toasting did not automatically mean drinking more than you should. The history of toasting is followed by an elegant argument for reviving the custom at The Art of Manliness. -Thanks, Tim!
Comments (5)
"Many political issues separated Jackson from Calhoun, his Vice President. One was the issue of states rights. Hoping for sympathy from President Jackson, Calhoun and the other states-rights party members sought to trap Jackson into a pro-states-rights public pronouncement at a Jefferson birthday celebration in April 1832. Some of the guests gave toasts which sought to establish a connection between a states-rights view of government and nullification. Finally, Jackson's turn to give a toast came, and he rose and challenged those present, "Our Federal Union — It must be preserved." Calhoun then rose and stated, "The Union — next to our liberty, the most dear!" Jackson had humiliated Calhoun in public. The nullification crisis that would follow served as the last straw. Jackson proved that he was unafraid to stare down his enemies, no matter what position they might hold."
The picture under "Why We Should Bring Back Toasting" is not from a toast at all. Elsewhere it's titled: "Patrons at a Harlem bar on 135th Street toast joyously after black world heavyweight champion Joe Louis’s first-round knockout of Max Schmeling at Yankee Stadium, 1938".
The picture under "verbal souvenir" is of Shackleton's Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition. Multiple sources say it was from the traditional Saturday evening toast in the Navy: "To our sweethearts and wives", with the unofficial response "may they never meet". Again, not a long 'manly' oratory. The British Navy also changed it a few years ago to "Our families", as many women also serve these days.
Personally, I would rather bring back drinking songs.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.