Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #64971 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-01-29 20:24 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-01-30 12:27 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-29 20:24 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-30 10:34 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-30 10:50 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-30 11:00 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-30 18:44 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-31 15:26 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-31 16:20 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-31 23:49 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-31 20:30 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-02-01 13:07 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-31 23:00 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-01 05:25 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-01 01:54 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-01 14:45 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-01 11:39 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-01 14:47 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-01 15:32 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-01 16:00 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 11:39 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-02 20:41 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-02 20:46 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 22:01 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 22:00 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-01 19:38 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-02-01 19:58 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-02-01 20:40 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 11:45 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-02-02 17:03 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 21:58 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-02-02 21:50 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-02-02 22:36 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-03 22:53 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-04 05:46 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-04 09:36 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-04 17:37 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-03 22:52 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-03 22:09 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-04 05:31 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-04 17:30 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-02 21:29 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-03 22:55 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-03 22:17 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-04 17:31 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-05 07:02 +1000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-05 01:33 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Ian <gay@sfuu.ca> - 2025-02-04 23:54 -0800
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-05 11:18 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-05 22:19 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-06 10:35 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-07 06:28 +1000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-06 22:30 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2025-02-07 15:39 +1000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-07 00:55 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-08 07:24 +1000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-07 16:19 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-07 17:38 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-07 10:22 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-07 12:42 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-06 22:09 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-06 23:53 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-06 23:27 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-07 10:23 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-05 11:04 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-02-03 10:38 -0800
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-03 20:27 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-03 23:15 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-04 05:35 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-04 09:41 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-04 13:07 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-04 17:39 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-03 23:14 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-02-04 00:36 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-03 22:56 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-02-05 09:54 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-02-05 19:32 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-05 22:23 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-02-06 04:50 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-06 00:45 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-02-06 18:12 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-02-06 20:38 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-06 23:13 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-02-06 18:10 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-04 17:29 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-03 22:48 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-04 05:54 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-04 17:35 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 11:44 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-02 20:45 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 22:01 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-02 21:26 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-02-03 04:17 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-03 01:29 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-03 09:45 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-03 09:08 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-03 22:54 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-01 19:36 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 11:42 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-01 14:44 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-31 13:35 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-30 06:14 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-30 12:27 +0000
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-03 22:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fbbc4315-8fa9-9348-b5e7-2d7651bab364@example.net> |
| In reply to | #65166 |
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 2/2/25 5:45 AM, D wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, Lars Poulsen wrote: >> >>> On 2025-02-01, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 2025-02-01, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:47:08 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Old nautical saying, translating from Spanish: Small craft, big misery. >>>>> >>>>> Other nautical saying: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.hauteresidence.com/olivia-hsu-decker-at-the-monaco-yacht-show/ >>>>> a-pillow-on-a-yacht-saying-a-boat-is-a-hole-in-the-water-surrounded-by- >>>>> wood-into-which-you-pour-money/ >>>> >>>> It's been said that the two happiest days in a boat owner's life >>>> are the day he buys it and the day he sells it. >>> >>> Same with airplanes. >>> >> >> Damn it Lars! So that one is out too? ;) >> >> Revision... I buy a plane _and_ a pilot then. You guys are really party >> poopers! ;) > > > Well, how about a mini zeppelin or blimp ? Big hot > air balloon with a tiny house under ? :-) > It's already on my list of companies to start. A luxury zeppelin liner between europe and the US. I just need to find a billionaire to fund it first. =)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-03 22:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iCmdnVNZXNxYGzz6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #65179 |
On 2/3/25 4:55 PM, D wrote: > > > On Sun, 2 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: > >> On 2/2/25 5:45 AM, D wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>> >>>> On 2025-02-01, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 2025-02-01, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:47:08 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Old nautical saying, translating from Spanish: Small craft, big >>>>>>> misery. >>>>>> >>>>>> Other nautical saying: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.hauteresidence.com/olivia-hsu-decker-at-the-monaco-yacht-show/ >>>>>> a-pillow-on-a-yacht-saying-a-boat-is-a-hole-in-the-water-surrounded-by- >>>>>> >>>>>> wood-into-which-you-pour-money/ >>>>> >>>>> It's been said that the two happiest days in a boat owner's life >>>>> are the day he buys it and the day he sells it. >>>> >>>> Same with airplanes. >>>> >>> >>> Damn it Lars! So that one is out too? ;) >>> >>> Revision... I buy a plane _and_ a pilot then. You guys are really >>> party poopers! ;) >> >> >> Well, how about a mini zeppelin or blimp ? Big hot >> air balloon with a tiny house under ? :-) >> > > It's already on my list of companies to start. A luxury zeppelin liner > between europe and the US. I just need to find a billionaire to fund it > first. =) The USA has a few who are into 'aviation' .... Zeps are technically "better", but the framework is subject to stress and can snap - even if it was upgraded to titanium. Blimps spread the load across the entire envelope and can thus survive sudden wind gusts better. They may kinda fold and shimmy, but don't snap. Hmmmm ... maybe a 'hybrid' is possible now - a blimp, but 'stiffened' a bit with like graphite ribs so it's not SO floppy ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-04 17:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <12f8009a-b8a0-9f85-ba66-508512e93ab4@example.net> |
| In reply to | #65187 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 2/3/25 4:55 PM, D wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 2 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >> >>> On 2/2/25 5:45 AM, D wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2025-02-01, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-02-01, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 14:47:08 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Old nautical saying, translating from Spanish: Small craft, big >>>>>>>> misery. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other nautical saying: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.hauteresidence.com/olivia-hsu-decker-at-the-monaco-yacht-show/ >>>>>>> a-pillow-on-a-yacht-saying-a-boat-is-a-hole-in-the-water-surrounded-by- >>>>>>> wood-into-which-you-pour-money/ >>>>>> >>>>>> It's been said that the two happiest days in a boat owner's life >>>>>> are the day he buys it and the day he sells it. >>>>> >>>>> Same with airplanes. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Damn it Lars! So that one is out too? ;) >>>> >>>> Revision... I buy a plane _and_ a pilot then. You guys are really party >>>> poopers! ;) >>> >>> >>> Well, how about a mini zeppelin or blimp ? Big hot >>> air balloon with a tiny house under ? :-) >>> >> >> It's already on my list of companies to start. A luxury zeppelin liner >> between europe and the US. I just need to find a billionaire to fund it >> first. =) > > > The USA has a few who are into 'aviation' .... > > Zeps are technically "better", but the framework > is subject to stress and can snap - even if it > was upgraded to titanium. Blimps spread the load > across the entire envelope and can thus survive > sudden wind gusts better. They may kinda fold > and shimmy, but don't snap. > > Hmmmm ... maybe a 'hybrid' is possible now - > a blimp, but 'stiffened' a bit with like > graphite ribs so it's not SO floppy ? I heard about an experimental concept that does not use a gas for lift, but vacuum! Very fascinating!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-05 07:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <67a28066@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #65205 |
D <nospam@example.net> wrote: > On Mon, 3 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >> Zeps are technically "better", but the framework >> is subject to stress and can snap - even if it >> was upgraded to titanium. Blimps spread the load >> across the entire envelope and can thus survive >> sudden wind gusts better. They may kinda fold >> and shimmy, but don't snap. >> >> Hmmmm ... maybe a 'hybrid' is possible now - >> a blimp, but 'stiffened' a bit with like >> graphite ribs so it's not SO floppy ? > > I heard about an experimental concept that does not use a gas for lift, > but vacuum! Very fascinating! More theoretical than experimental - the materials might be possible but I don't think anyone can make them yet. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-05 01:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nzydnZ7AocjLmz76nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #65216 |
On 2/4/25 4:02 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > D <nospam@example.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>> Zeps are technically "better", but the framework >>> is subject to stress and can snap - even if it >>> was upgraded to titanium. Blimps spread the load >>> across the entire envelope and can thus survive >>> sudden wind gusts better. They may kinda fold >>> and shimmy, but don't snap. >>> >>> Hmmmm ... maybe a 'hybrid' is possible now - >>> a blimp, but 'stiffened' a bit with like >>> graphite ribs so it's not SO floppy ? >> >> I heard about an experimental concept that does not use a gas for lift, >> but vacuum! Very fascinating! > > More theoretical than experimental - the materials might be > possible but I don't think anyone can make them yet. Um, no, CAN'T be made. Ever SEEN any kind of vac vessel even slightly compromised ? INSTANT total CRUSH. Maybe an unobtanium sphere ..... I think the trick is to cleverly combine hydrogen and helium lift. Envision hydrogen cells - but INSIDE a helium envelope. Reduces fire risk to near zero but you STILL gain some lift.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian <gay@sfuu.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-04 23:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vnv5fs$1lter$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #65219 |
WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 2/4/25 4:02 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> D <nospam@example.net> wrote: >>> On Mon, 3 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>> Zeps are technically "better", but the framework >>>> is subject to stress and can snap - even if it >>>> was upgraded to titanium. Blimps spread the load >>>> across the entire envelope and can thus survive >>>> sudden wind gusts better. They may kinda fold >>>> and shimmy, but don't snap. >>>> >>>> Hmmmm ... maybe a 'hybrid' is possible now - >>>> a blimp, but 'stiffened' a bit with like >>>> graphite ribs so it's not SO floppy ? >>> >>> I heard about an experimental concept that does not use a gas for >>> lift, but vacuum! Very fascinating! >> >> More theoretical than experimental - the materials might be >> possible but I don't think anyone can make them yet. > > Um, no, CAN'T be made. Ever SEEN any kind of vac > vessel even slightly compromised ? INSTANT total > CRUSH. Maybe an unobtanium sphere ..... > > I think the trick is to cleverly combine hydrogen > and helium lift. Envision hydrogen cells - but > INSIDE a helium envelope. Reduces fire risk to > near zero but you STILL gain some lift. 29-2 is not a big gain over 29-4. Who needs the complication? -- *********** To reply by e-mail, make w single in address **************
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-05 11:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5hqb7lxb81.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #65219 |
On 2025-02-05 07:33, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 2/4/25 4:02 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> D <nospam@example.net> wrote: >>> On Mon, 3 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>> Zeps are technically "better", but the framework >>>> is subject to stress and can snap - even if it >>>> was upgraded to titanium. Blimps spread the load >>>> across the entire envelope and can thus survive >>>> sudden wind gusts better. They may kinda fold >>>> and shimmy, but don't snap. >>>> >>>> Hmmmm ... maybe a 'hybrid' is possible now - >>>> a blimp, but 'stiffened' a bit with like >>>> graphite ribs so it's not SO floppy ? >>> >>> I heard about an experimental concept that does not use a gas for lift, >>> but vacuum! Very fascinating! >> >> More theoretical than experimental - the materials might be >> possible but I don't think anyone can make them yet. > > Um, no, CAN'T be made. Ever SEEN any kind of vac > vessel even slightly compromised ? INSTANT total > CRUSH. Maybe an unobtanium sphere ..... Ever seen electrical bulbs? Some are vacuum filled. There were also electronic valves, CRT tubes... -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-05 22:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nyGdnXS9DLnTtzn6nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #65224 |
On 2/5/25 5:18 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-02-05 07:33, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >> On 2/4/25 4:02 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 3 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>>> Zeps are technically "better", but the framework >>>>> is subject to stress and can snap - even if it >>>>> was upgraded to titanium. Blimps spread the load >>>>> across the entire envelope and can thus survive >>>>> sudden wind gusts better. They may kinda fold >>>>> and shimmy, but don't snap. >>>>> >>>>> Hmmmm ... maybe a 'hybrid' is possible now - >>>>> a blimp, but 'stiffened' a bit with like >>>>> graphite ribs so it's not SO floppy ? >>>> >>>> I heard about an experimental concept that does not use a gas for lift, >>>> but vacuum! Very fascinating! >>> >>> More theoretical than experimental - the materials might be >>> possible but I don't think anyone can make them yet. >> >> Um, no, CAN'T be made. Ever SEEN any kind of vac >> vessel even slightly compromised ? INSTANT total >> CRUSH. Maybe an unobtanium sphere ..... > > Ever seen electrical bulbs? Some are vacuum filled. > There were also electronic valves, CRT tubes... Well, as an experiment, WEIGH the glass envelope on those vac tubes ... then extrapolate that for a 200-foot flying vessel. Oh, both valves and old light-bulbs BREAK very easily. Modern incandescent bulbs are filled with argon. This is better and the gas/pressure helps suppress filament boil-off. Anyway, sorry, I just CAN'T see any sort of useful and safe vacuum blimp. One goose bumps into the thing and it will all implode in an instant. Hmmm ... MAYbe there can be a 'gas' lighter than hydrogen - some kind of exotic matter ? Perhaps some high electrostatic charge - center electrode and envelope both negatively charged, then the vacuum would not SEEM to be a vacuum so far as the structural components are concerned. Sounds kinda sparky alas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-06 10:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vo239p$2tjs1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #65227 |
On 06/02/2025 03:19, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: > Anyway, sorry, I just CAN'T see any sort of useful > and safe vacuum blimp. One goose bumps into the > thing and it will all implode in an instant. > This is substantially correct. The strength to weigh ratio of a vacuum filled blimp or dirigible means it probably cannot exist at any useable size > Hmmm ... MAYbe there can be a 'gas' lighter than > hydrogen - some kind of exotic matter ? Perhaps > some high electrostatic charge - center electrode > and envelope both negatively charged, then the > vacuum would not SEEM to be a vacuum so far as > the structural components are concerned. Sounds > kinda sparky alas. Cant be a 'gas lighter than hydrogen' -- It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house for the voice of the kingdom. Jonathan Swift
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-07 06:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <67a51b61@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #65231 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 06/02/2025 03:19, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >> Anyway, sorry, I just CAN'T see any sort of useful >> and safe vacuum blimp. One goose bumps into the >> thing and it will all implode in an instant. >> > This is substantially correct. The strength to weigh ratio of a vacuum > filled blimp or dirigible means it probably cannot exist at any useable > size If you can make small vacuum balls that float in the air, you could potentially fill a blimp with them instead of gas. Or instead of one hollow vacuum chamber, join the balls (or honeycomb segments) up into one solid lighter-than-air structure of tiny sealed vacuum chambers where only the outer ones are vulnerable to impact. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-06 22:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9IudneM3jY3V4zj6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #65234 |
On 2/6/25 3:28 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 06/02/2025 03:19, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>> Anyway, sorry, I just CAN'T see any sort of useful >>> and safe vacuum blimp. One goose bumps into the >>> thing and it will all implode in an instant. >>> >> This is substantially correct. The strength to weigh ratio of a vacuum >> filled blimp or dirigible means it probably cannot exist at any useable >> size > > If you can make small vacuum balls that float in the air, you > could potentially fill a blimp with them instead of gas. Or > instead of one hollow vacuum chamber, join the balls (or honeycomb > segments) up into one solid lighter-than-air structure of tiny > sealed vacuum chambers where only the outer ones are vulnerable > to impact. But ONE little dent compromising the structural integrity and ...... In college I sometimes worked with vac drying of biological samples. We'd use like an 8-inch polycarbonate dome fitted to a gasketed metal plate. You'd think polycarbonate should be kinda indestructible ... but it kinda depends how people "cleaning" it heaped on abuse. I remember when one imploded - sounded like a damned bomb and blew out the glass of the fume hood, injuring a couple of students. The released fumes weren't so great for ya either but most went up the chute. There's always helium-3 ... 25% lighter ... but on earth it's kinda unobtanium.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-07 15:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <67a59caa@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #65240 |
WokieSux282@ud0s4.net <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> wrote: > On 2/6/25 3:28 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> On 06/02/2025 03:19, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>> Anyway, sorry, I just CAN'T see any sort of useful >>>> and safe vacuum blimp. One goose bumps into the >>>> thing and it will all implode in an instant. >>>> >>> This is substantially correct. The strength to weigh ratio of a vacuum >>> filled blimp or dirigible means it probably cannot exist at any useable >>> size >> >> If you can make small vacuum balls that float in the air, you >> could potentially fill a blimp with them instead of gas. Or >> instead of one hollow vacuum chamber, join the balls (or honeycomb >> segments) up into one solid lighter-than-air structure of tiny >> sealed vacuum chambers where only the outer ones are vulnerable >> to impact. > > > But ONE little dent compromising the structural > integrity and ...... And the rest of the sealed balls/segments still keep the thing up, that was my point. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-07 00:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pb6cnXX0VOSoPTj6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #65244 |
On 2/7/25 12:39 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > WokieSux282@ud0s4.net <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> wrote: >> On 2/6/25 3:28 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 06/02/2025 03:19, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>>> Anyway, sorry, I just CAN'T see any sort of useful >>>>> and safe vacuum blimp. One goose bumps into the >>>>> thing and it will all implode in an instant. >>>>> >>>> This is substantially correct. The strength to weigh ratio of a vacuum >>>> filled blimp or dirigible means it probably cannot exist at any useable >>>> size >>> >>> If you can make small vacuum balls that float in the air, you >>> could potentially fill a blimp with them instead of gas. Or >>> instead of one hollow vacuum chamber, join the balls (or honeycomb >>> segments) up into one solid lighter-than-air structure of tiny >>> sealed vacuum chambers where only the outer ones are vulnerable >>> to impact. >> >> >> But ONE little dent compromising the structural >> integrity and ...... > > And the rest of the sealed balls/segments still keep the thing up, > that was my point. But they WON'T ... implosions can be quite violent. If one goes it'll be a chain reaction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-08 07:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <67a67a1d@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #65245 |
WokieSux282@ud0s4.net <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> wrote: > On 2/7/25 12:39 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> WokieSux282@ud0s4.net <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> wrote: >>> On 2/6/25 3:28 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 06/02/2025 03:19, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>>>> Anyway, sorry, I just CAN'T see any sort of useful >>>>>> and safe vacuum blimp. One goose bumps into the >>>>>> thing and it will all implode in an instant. >>>>>> >>>>> This is substantially correct. The strength to weigh ratio of a vacuum >>>>> filled blimp or dirigible means it probably cannot exist at any useable >>>>> size >>>> >>>> If you can make small vacuum balls that float in the air, you >>>> could potentially fill a blimp with them instead of gas. Or >>>> instead of one hollow vacuum chamber, join the balls (or honeycomb >>>> segments) up into one solid lighter-than-air structure of tiny >>>> sealed vacuum chambers where only the outer ones are vulnerable >>>> to impact. >>> >>> But ONE little dent compromising the structural >>> integrity and ...... >> >> And the rest of the sealed balls/segments still keep the thing up, >> that was my point. > > But they WON'T ... implosions can be quite violent. > If one goes it'll be a chain reaction. That might be. Or it might be possible to avoid that with the right design, depending on the nature of the material. It'd be an interesting challenge if the materials were around to start with, although you'd still have the old problem of airships/blimps being easily blown about in strong winds. Note that pieces of such a light material wouldn't have much mass compared to materials used in regular vacuum chambers, so the impact force of bits flying around from an implosion would be less than commonly experienced. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-07 16:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vo5bqm$3io04$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #65244 |
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: > WokieSux282@ud0s4.net <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> wrote: >> On 2/6/25 3:28 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 06/02/2025 03:19, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>>> Anyway, sorry, I just CAN'T see any sort of useful and safe >>>>> vacuum blimp. One goose bumps into the thing and it will all >>>>> implode in an instant. >>>>> >>>> This is substantially correct. The strength to weigh ratio of a >>>> vacuum filled blimp or dirigible means it probably cannot exist at >>>> any useable size >>> >>> If you can make small vacuum balls that float in the air, you could >>> potentially fill a blimp with them instead of gas. Or instead of >>> one hollow vacuum chamber, join the balls (or honeycomb segments) >>> up into one solid lighter-than-air structure of tiny sealed vacuum >>> chambers where only the outer ones are vulnerable to impact. >> >> >> But ONE little dent compromising the structural >> integrity and ...... > > And the rest of the sealed balls/segments still keep the thing up, > that was my point. Unless the explosive collapse of the one sealed ball/segment impacts the integrety of adjacent segments such that some number greater than one of them also then explosively collapses. At which point you have a runaway chain reaction that might take out a significant number of the balls/segments before it fizzles out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-07 17:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m0mup4Fakt5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #65254 |
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 16:19:34 -0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote in <vo5bqm$3io04$1@dont-email.me>: > Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >> WokieSux282@ud0s4.net <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> wrote: >>> On 2/6/25 3:28 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 06/02/2025 03:19, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>>>> Anyway, sorry, I just CAN'T see any sort of useful and safe vacuum >>>>>> blimp. One goose bumps into the thing and it will all implode in >>>>>> an instant. >>>>>> >>>>> This is substantially correct. The strength to weigh ratio of a >>>>> vacuum filled blimp or dirigible means it probably cannot exist at >>>>> any useable size >>>> >>>> If you can make small vacuum balls that float in the air, you could >>>> potentially fill a blimp with them instead of gas. Or instead of one >>>> hollow vacuum chamber, join the balls (or honeycomb segments) up into >>>> one solid lighter-than-air structure of tiny sealed vacuum chambers >>>> where only the outer ones are vulnerable to impact. >>> >>> >>> But ONE little dent compromising the structural integrity and ...... >> >> And the rest of the sealed balls/segments still keep the thing up, >> that was my point. > > Unless the explosive collapse of the one sealed ball/segment impacts the > integrety of adjacent segments such that some number greater than one of > them also then explosively collapses. At which point you have a runaway > chain reaction that might take out a significant number of the > balls/segments before it fizzles out. Would I be speaking out of turn to say that the whole idea just plain sucks? /s Seriously, though: the materials to keep the environment out of the vacuum vessels are going to be too flimsy for safe lift. Consider a picture tube of yore: it does not float, and that's already pretty flimsy. BTW, tried Linux 6.14-rc1 a couple of days ago -- couldn't get an NVIDIA binary blob to build on it, or I'd be running it now...for Science! -- -v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti OS: Linux 6.13.1 Release: Mint 22.1 Mem: 258G "Space is an illusion, disk space doubly so."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-07 10:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <83b6b926-c964-390e-6510-748e9a3f157e@example.net> |
| In reply to | #65240 |
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 2/6/25 3:28 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> On 06/02/2025 03:19, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>> Anyway, sorry, I just CAN'T see any sort of useful >>>> and safe vacuum blimp. One goose bumps into the >>>> thing and it will all implode in an instant. >>>> >>> This is substantially correct. The strength to weigh ratio of a vacuum >>> filled blimp or dirigible means it probably cannot exist at any useable >>> size >> >> If you can make small vacuum balls that float in the air, you >> could potentially fill a blimp with them instead of gas. Or >> instead of one hollow vacuum chamber, join the balls (or honeycomb >> segments) up into one solid lighter-than-air structure of tiny >> sealed vacuum chambers where only the outer ones are vulnerable >> to impact. > > > But ONE little dent compromising the structural > integrity and ...... This is easy! Write in the manual "do not compromise the structural integrity", problem solved! ;) > In college I sometimes worked with vac drying of > biological samples. We'd use like an 8-inch > polycarbonate dome fitted to a gasketed metal > plate. You'd think polycarbonate should be kinda > indestructible ... but it kinda depends how > people "cleaning" it heaped on abuse. I remember > when one imploded - sounded like a damned bomb > and blew out the glass of the fume hood, injuring > a couple of students. The released fumes weren't > so great for ya either but most went up the chute. > > There's always helium-3 ... 25% lighter ... but > on earth it's kinda unobtanium.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-07 12:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vo4v2r$3gflo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #65251 |
On 07/02/2025 09:22, D wrote: >> >> But ONE little dent compromising the structural >> integrity and ...... > > This is easy! Write in the manual "do not compromise the structural > integrity", problem solved! 😉 Ah, the Marxist approach to science. If you don't like it, tell people it isn't valid or shouldn't be valid. -- "It was a lot more fun being 20 in the 70's that it is being 70 in the 20's" Joew Walsh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-06 22:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q8qdnTdwEZjy5Dj6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #65231 |
On 2/6/25 5:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 06/02/2025 03:19, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >> Anyway, sorry, I just CAN'T see any sort of useful >> and safe vacuum blimp. One goose bumps into the >> thing and it will all implode in an instant. >> > This is substantially correct. The strength to weigh ratio of a vacuum > filled blimp or dirigible means it probably cannot exist at any useable > size > >> Hmmm ... MAYbe there can be a 'gas' lighter than >> hydrogen - some kind of exotic matter ? Perhaps >> some high electrostatic charge - center electrode >> and envelope both negatively charged, then the >> vacuum would not SEEM to be a vacuum so far as >> the structural components are concerned. Sounds >> kinda sparky alas. > > Cant be a 'gas lighter than hydrogen' Um ... not if any protons are involved. But protons ain't everything. Maybe the collider people will come across something. Don't bet on it, but MAYbe. Hmmmm ... anti-electron with orbiting regular electron ??? Beware of ionization however :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-06 23:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <14rf7lxgpj.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #65227 |
On 2025-02-06 04:19, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 2/5/25 5:18 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-02-05 07:33, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>> On 2/4/25 4:02 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 3 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>>>> Zeps are technically "better", but the framework >>>>>> is subject to stress and can snap - even if it >>>>>> was upgraded to titanium. Blimps spread the load >>>>>> across the entire envelope and can thus survive >>>>>> sudden wind gusts better. They may kinda fold >>>>>> and shimmy, but don't snap. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hmmmm ... maybe a 'hybrid' is possible now - >>>>>> a blimp, but 'stiffened' a bit with like >>>>>> graphite ribs so it's not SO floppy ? >>>>> >>>>> I heard about an experimental concept that does not use a gas for >>>>> lift, >>>>> but vacuum! Very fascinating! >>>> >>>> More theoretical than experimental - the materials might be >>>> possible but I don't think anyone can make them yet. >>> >>> Um, no, CAN'T be made. Ever SEEN any kind of vac >>> vessel even slightly compromised ? INSTANT total >>> CRUSH. Maybe an unobtanium sphere ..... >> >> Ever seen electrical bulbs? Some are vacuum filled. >> There were also electronic valves, CRT tubes... > > Well, as an experiment, WEIGH the glass envelope > on those vac tubes ... then extrapolate that for > a 200-foot flying vessel. > > Oh, both valves and old light-bulbs BREAK very > easily. > > Modern incandescent bulbs are filled with argon. > This is better and the gas/pressure helps suppress > filament boil-off. I know. I happen to have one vacuum bulb at hand reach, and the bottom part (the part facing the floor) is darkened by evaporated metal deposits. > > Anyway, sorry, I just CAN'T see any sort of useful > and safe vacuum blimp. One goose bumps into the > thing and it will all implode in an instant. Oh, I know that vacuum filled blimps are impossible. > > Hmmm ... MAYbe there can be a 'gas' lighter than > hydrogen - some kind of exotic matter ? Perhaps > some high electrostatic charge - center electrode > and envelope both negatively charged, then the > vacuum would not SEEM to be a vacuum so far as > the structural components are concerned. Sounds > kinda sparky alas. Force fields :-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web