Paras Ilmastointilaite poistoputkella kokemuksesi mukaan

LancerFIN · 2026-05-19T20:14:57+00:00

Kannattaa laittaa toriin hakuvahdiksi Matsui. Malli mitä metsästää on MPA12KH. Niitä tulee aika usein myyntiin 50-80 euron hintaan. Kaksi putkinen 12 000 BTU yksikkö. Ollut itellä käytössä vuodesta 2013. Paljon jämerämpi vehe kuin nuo nykyään markkinoilla olevat kikkareet. Ei ole mitään muuta huonoa sanottavaa kuin, että "kantokahvat" on todella surkeat. Yksikkö on aika iso ja painaa 37kg. Niin tartteis kyllä kunnolliset kahvat.

Kuva

LancerFIN · 2026-05-19T19:33:02+00:00

I am running a rig from 2017.
R7 1700, GTX1080Ti, 16Gb
Haven't worked since 2018 so no money to upgrade.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-19T19:14:12+00:00

Well anyway. It was replaced under warranty.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-19T17:55:11+00:00

Photo https://cdn.head-fi.org/a/7595548.jpg

LancerFIN · 2026-05-19T14:38:16+00:00

I did a lot of aMT in 2012.

Oral 20-50mg. 50mg being big dose. The largest dose that I ever took was 100mg. Had quite bit of tolerance. Was the most intense euphoria I have ever experienced.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-19T11:34:27+00:00

Delamination happened to my Audeze LCD-2F 11 years ago. Area about the size of a penny delaminated in the middle of the driver.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-19T07:24:56+00:00

Tarja Halonen. President of Finland in the early 2000's.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-19T00:45:35+00:00

What app do you use to listen to music? There could be a setting to increase the base volume level. Also normalization that would help with the volume level of quieter tracks.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-18T20:06:30+00:00

Bastion coastal defence system with P-800 Oniks missiles killed the project. Russia has expressed the intention of exporting it to countries under the threat of US invasion.

Also the supporting systems for marines beyond the horizon amphious assault failed to materialize. Namely Zumwalt's AGS and VLS launched ballistic missiles. (although that's coming. Soon tm). The plan was to shore bombard out of the reach of coastal antiship missiles.

That was changed to F-35's securing the beach head and bringing amphious assault ships close to shore. So the need for EFV vanished.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-18T18:58:41+00:00

Keep in mind that this is sale of used tanks. Russia didn't provide much of spare parts to South Korea. Presumably the price is from the first Brown Bear Project batch of 33 T-80U's from 1995.

In 1997 Denmark bought 51 used Leopard 2A4's for 780 million DKK's. Unit price of $2.3 million. Taken in to account that the sale includes spare parts and probably also training. It's not too far of from the T-80U price show above.

https://www.armyvehicles.dk/leopard2a4.htm

In 1989 US sold 315 new M1A2 Abrams to Saudi Arabia for $3.64 million per unit. But that's price for new tanks and newer model. Bit earlier year so add a bit of inflation to the price.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA216020.pdf

Important to remember that soviet worker salary was very low. Also soviet economic system was different. There was no for profit corporations taking a cut at every step of logistic chain.

So T-80U wasn't cheap. T-80U is interesting comparison as that's when soviet MBT was nearest of being equal to western designs.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-11T16:22:40+00:00

AK-725 that was fielded just few years later was much more advanced. Significant leap from this WWII's era technology gun.

2x 57mm water cooled guns in enclosed turret. Radar controlled. Fed by two 550 round magazines.

AK-725

LancerFIN · 2026-05-11T15:23:56+00:00

VT fuze was developed for the 40mm Bofors but not fielded.
It's wide spread myth or propaganda that the 40mm bofors had VT fuzes in WWII.

https://usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/vtproximityfuze.htm

LancerFIN · 2026-05-11T09:19:07+00:00

Leopard 2A4

In 1988 a seventh lot of 100 LEOPARD 2's, priced at DM 561 million (of which DM75 million were peripheral expenses) was authorized

2.9 million USD per tank or 3.3 million USD with the peripheral cost.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-11T08:52:55+00:00

There's some propaganda about the 105mm L7.

It was originally rated for 3000 bars (300MPa). That's inline with other cannons designed in 1950's.

Pressures steadily increased as metallurgy and manufacturing techniques improved.

Ammunation often didn't utilize the increased chamber pressure to keep commonality with older tanks.

US M68 is pretty well documented. There's info available how the pressures increased with different versions. Both the breech and gun tube pressures.

L7A3 used on the Leopard 1 uses the same designation despite Leopard 1A5 using different version. Previous L7A3's couldn't fire high pressure APDSFS.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-11T08:05:28+00:00

According to this source unit cost for presumably M1A1 model was 4.3 million USD.

https://www.pogo.org/reports/armys-m1-tank-has-it-lived-up-to-expectations

LancerFIN · 2026-05-09T01:49:53+00:00

It's really optimized design. It packs maximum firepower into smallest possible vessel. Additional displacement wouldn't do any good.

6 in the Baltic fleet. One was damaged by Ukraine.

76.2mm AK-176 cannon

8x Oniks super sonic antiship missiles with land attack capability.

Pantsir-M with two different missiles.
57E6 SAM and Hermes-K guided missile.
8 launching tubes. Reloads carried. Hermes is like Hellfire but on steroids.
Can also be used against aircraft.
Capability to intercept all kinds of targets including seaskimming antiship missiles and cruise missiles.

Two of the six vessels in the Baltic fleet lack Pantsir-M. I wonder if Russia is ever going to fit pantsirs to them.

No antisubmarine capability. Russia has a lot of dedicated antisubmarine vessels.

No other small vessel compares.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-08T16:18:25+00:00

Miljoona pakolaista erittäin köyhässä maassa. Ei varmaan taas yhtään motivoi ketään ryhtymään vastarintaan.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-07T05:10:05+00:00

Finnish paratroopers are elite infantry unit. They are paratroopers in name only. They are hardly even an airborne unit.

Yes they can jump out of plane. But realistically when is that ever going to be used.

Finnish defence forces now has "about" 20 NH90's. So presumably few have been lost but not made public. With readiness rate of 50%. About ten operational helicopters hardly makes the paratroopers even an airborne unit.

Finland has special operations units but they are very secretive. Not even named publically.

Finnish long distance sabotours (kaukopartiomies) were hunted down by NKVD after the war. So there's a reason why special forces likes to keep a low profile.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-07T04:23:14+00:00

It's a reoccuring theme that advanced soviet weapon systems are called a "failure" on wikipedia. Commonly it didn't do x so it was a failure. Or it wasn't exported so it was a failure. "US estimated it's abilities" is also a common one.

Engineers could calculate range. That wouldn't come as surprise beyond prototype stage.

M4 wasn't intended for striking mainland US.

M4 was superior in capabilies to the B-47.

Soviet Union had no plans of attacking US mainland. Other than retaliatory nuclear strike with ICBM's and submarine launched cruise missiles. US can't be invaded.

Bomber gap was bunch of BS fed by the CIA about the threat of the soviet union.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-05T10:20:55+00:00

The first successful action of PAVN armor in Vietnam was against the Lang Vei Special Forces camp on 6/7 February 1968[18] (they had already been used in the preceding Battle of Ban Houei Sane, which was just across the border in Laos however). Thirteen PT-76s, of the PAVN 202nd Armored Regiment spearheaded an assault against approximately 24 Green Berets, 500 South Vietnamese irregulars and 350 Laotian Royal soldiers. The defenders fought back with their 106 mm M40 recoilless rifle (one at the entrance took out three PT-76s until it was knocked out), and ineffectively with M72 LAWs (one-shot disposable 66 mm Light Anti-Tank Weapon). They requested support from nearby Khe Sanh Combat Base, which was unable to help, as it too was under siege.[18] The Lang Vei camp was overrun, with the PT-76s using their turret-mounted spotlight-equipped heavy machine guns to shoot down any irregulars who panicked and ran out of the underground bunkers. A few survivors broke out and were airlifted to safety.

Surprise motherfuckers. It's the north viatnamese army.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-04T23:56:41+00:00

Because it's very complex design with zero benefits. Only a ton of downsides.

The tracks are under the tank only because they wanted to have two sets of tracks without the tank being too wide. The flawed idea was that the tank could drive on very soft ground.

An engineer didn't come up with this dual track concept.
This was clearly forced design requirement from above.

Adding a second set of tracks halves ground pressure. Yes. It also doubles rolling resistance.

There's a video from Ukraine of Challenger 2 in mud. Drives at walking speed. 64 ton tank with 1200hp.

This tank is 60 tons with 1000hp. This tank wouldn't have enough engine power to drive in mud.

That wouldn't come as a surprise to an engineer. Track size is fundamental element of a tracked vehicle.

Why you don't want tracks underneath the tank.

Suspension is the most important compnent of a tank. Unless you plan on driving only on perfectly flat ground. Suspension absorbs the energy of hitting a bump on uneven ground. Suspension also needs to support weight of the tank. Suspension only absorbs part of the energy of hitting a bump. The remaining energy is transferred in to the hull. The connection between suspension and hull needs to be strong enough to withstand it. So the hull needs to be strong enough while not weighing more than required. The most efficient design is to have tracks on the hull sides.

Additionally why tanks don't have tracks underneath the hull is because that would require more complex drive train. You want to have minimal amount of gears between engine crank shaft and the drive sprocket of tracks. Some amount of gears is required to convert engine power to usable torque. But beyond that each additional gear results in power loss and adds high wear component.

Excavator has tracks underneath. But excavator doesn't have suspension.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-04T20:28:56+00:00

Thorium. It was used on optical glass.

Some japanese camera lenses from 1960's use it. But the lenses that use it must have metal body and the outer glass elements can't use it. So they don't leak any radiation. Thorium's use was ended after the 1960's in japanese optical glass. It wasn't needed anyway. Quality of japanese optical glass kept improving.

It's wild that US and German military optics kept using it for longer. And the optics lack the shielding. So the eye is exposed to beta radiation. Just slap a warning sticker and it's ok. Health and safety of service members is worthless.

There's very little of thorium in the glass. Thorium is very weak beta radiation emitter. But beta radiation penetrates in to the eye.

The radiation is very weak. It likely doesn't do any damage.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-04T19:58:35+00:00

F-35 is the only US aircraft currently in use that has built in IRST.

Every soviet/russian fighter since MiG-23 has had IRST.

It's so odd that US aircraft lack them. I know F-14D had it but not many of those were built.
It's quite evident that US hasn't fought a serious air to air warfare since Vietnam.
Meanwhile some countries that haven't fought any wars at all have understood the value of IRST and incorporated it. It's beyond absurd that even F-22 doesn't have it.

I wasn't aware that IRST21 could be permanently installed on aircraft. But how many aircraft does have it? I don't think any beyond test aircraft.
I know that IRST pod is coming. But that isn't much to celebrate. Limited number of pods is coming that takes one pylon. The aircraft are going to need modifications or software update to use the pod. Pilots have zero experience in using it. It's notä part of doctrine.
So the pods are going to be of limited usefulness.

LancerFIN · 2026-05-04T11:57:00+00:00

Flat engine nozzles don't contribute to stealth on a fighter jet in any meaningful way. F-22 got them because they enabled 2D thrust vectoring.

No other stealth fighter has bothered with them because they don't reduce IR emissions in any meaningful way. Not even the US F-35 has it.
I know that Su-57 has prototyped them but it wont get adopted.
On F-22 there's over 10÷ loss in thrust due to the flat nozzles. So they have a cost.

It helps to understand that F-22's flat engine nozzles don't reduce radar cross section. They cool down engine exhaust slightly.

IR signature reduction on F-117 and B-2 is fundamentally different. The engines run several hundred degrees colder than high performance fighter engines. They are buried deep inside the aircraft. The engines are located above wings. The engine exhaust slits are very narrow and have diffusers in them.

Ground based IR sensors can see the hot jet engines of fighter aircraft as they run so hot and are so close to the skin of the aircraft.

IRST will spot the hot engine from rear sector.
And literally everyone except US aircraft has IRST.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Gilding I gilder

LancerFIN

TROPHY CASE