Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.astro > #59067 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-20 14:37 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-08-27 08:41 +0000 |
| Articles | 10 on this page of 50 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.astro
Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-20 14:37 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-08-20 16:13 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-08-22 16:03 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:23 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 09:00 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-22 17:19 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-08-23 06:15 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-23 16:03 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-08-23 16:43 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-24 16:25 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 16:45 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-25 16:38 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-25 17:04 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 19:02 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:38 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:59 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:53 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 12:58 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 19:55 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:32 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:54 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:20 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:56 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:31 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 19:59 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-08-28 17:32 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-08-25 21:53 -0300
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:35 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 21:44 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:41 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-25 16:37 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-25 17:07 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:31 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:28 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 16:26 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 16:48 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:27 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:44 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:39 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:06 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 20:14 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 21:29 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:20 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 20:24 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:27 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:25 -0400
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 16:08 +0000
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-22 13:38 -0500
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-08-22 12:56 -0700
Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-08-27 08:41 +0000
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 20:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lt899d-7vk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #59116 |
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Same as the case for GA aircraft. You need a car at both ends of the >> flight. > > Really? If that’s the *only* advantage you can think of, you’re > really supporting my point. Cars are easy to rent, or skip all that > these days and just use an app to get a ride. You’re going to need > to make a *much* better case for it to make sense to put an > expensive flying vehicle in the middle of dangerous road traffic. Apparently you do not understand that the entire world is not one big city with Uber at your fingertips. Try getting an Uber ride in Gthenburg, NE. >> So why not a single device? > > Because the gulf between that idea and the reality is too great. > Different duties have different engineering requirements. Same > reason a vehicle meant to travel the vacuum of space has different > functional needs from one that is intended to launch from a planet > or one that is intended to re-enter an atmosphere. Yet many people have been building working machines since the 1930's so the technology can't be that difficult. > >> You probably resisted the idea >> of putting PDA functionality on cell phones, too. > > Wrong again. I was in the camp that *knew* putting a computer in > your pocket meant that “phones” would stop being about phone calls. > Just like a “flying car” in any sane universe would quickly make > driving pointless, so it’d really just be about a newer kind of > aircraft. Correct, it is more about the COST of a "newer" kind of aircraft that has been around for almost a century now. > > And that’s why I bring up self-driving cars in the context of > trains. Because if flying cars made sense, they’d *first* make > sense in the context of a plane or a car. Even if you never took > it driving, it seems like there should be an obvious advantage of > having a plane you can park at the airport in a facility no > different from a regular parking spot. Yet somehow nobody can > find a market? Lots of airplanes are parked in a facility no different from a regular parking spot. You continue to demonstrate you know absolutely nothing about aviation. > >> >A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense. I?m >> >not asking about that segment of the population. I?m asking about >> >the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors. Can you >> >make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea? >> > >> >> Why do I need to? Make the case for a car, period, to someone who >> lives in the Amazon jungle. The fact that there is no such case >> doesn't mean cars are useless. > > They *are* uselesss in the middle of the Amazon jungle. But that’s > a straw man; stick to the issue at hand. No, you don’t *have* to > make the case for flying cars, but you *did* decide to chime in to > do that. You haven’t been successful as of yet, so you can try > harder, bail out of the conversation, or just admit that, yeah, > flying cars really are just one of science fiction’s dumber ideas. Actually there is one flying car, a dune buggy actually, that is on the market and a portion of the target market is access to remote parts of the world such as jungle areas by people such as missionaries. http://www.flyskyrunner.com/ -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 21:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <guo69d-coc.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #59101 |
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: >> >> >Just the opposite! If I can only fly between airports, why not just call >> >it an airplane? What actual problem does a ?flying car? otherwise solve >> >that make it such a fantastic machine to have? What is the actual use >> >case that demonstrates *any* added value? >> >> Asked and answered. > > No, it wasn’t. Where’s the use case? I’m a guy sitting in my office > and I get a call telling me I need to get to X (home or hospital, > Detroit or Paris). I know all the tradeoffs of the current solutions > to that problem. What is the *actual* benefit a flying car offers in > a world where everyone’s a pilot, but I still have to go to an > airport, inspect the machine to verify it is airworthy, take care of > necessary FAA paperwork, etc.? Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes. There is no FAA paperwork unless you file a flight plan, and then that is automated. >> Do you know what a GA airplane is? I think you just asserted that >> they make no sense, yet lots of people have them. > > A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense. I’m > not asking about that segment of the population. I’m asking about > the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors. Can you > make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea? There are a lot of people who do not own a car; so what? There are lots of people who do not own a motorcycle; so what? There are lots of people who do not own an airplane; so what? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 18:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <npsll5$p29$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59110 |
For your reference, records indicate that jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes. You didn’t drive your airplane around town for days/weeks/months, though. And what do you do if you find your car has taken some damage that made it unable/dangerous to fly? A realistic world building exercise isn’t going to yield useful results if you can’t think past how you do things currently. > There is no FAA paperwork unless you file a flight plan, and then that > is automated. Sure, sure. The busywork is all ideally computerized. But the point is that such a setup isn’t some sort of imagined “I just drive right to the airport runway and off I go.” We’re a long way from anything *near* even that kind of SF fantasy. > There are a lot of people who do not own a car; so what? > > There are lots of people who do not own a motorcycle; so what? > > There are lots of people who do not own an airplane; so what? Those are all the opposite of the ownership issue being discussed. Your motives are now clear. I’m done with you. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 20:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gh999d-7vk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #59117 |
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote: > For your reference, records indicate that > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes. > > You didn’t drive your airplane around town for days/weeks/months, > though. And what do you do if you find your car has taken some > damage that made it unable/dangerous to fly? A realistic world > building exercise isn’t going to yield useful results if you can’t > think past how you do things currently. A preflight is a preflight. If the machine is damaged you call your insurance agent. > >> There is no FAA paperwork unless you file a flight plan, and then that >> is automated. > > Sure, sure. The busywork is all ideally computerized. But the point > is that such a setup isn’t some sort of imagined “I just drive right > to the airport runway and off I go.” We’re a long way from anything > *near* even that kind of SF fantasy. Only in your blindered view of the world. The ability to drive to the airport runway and off you go has been around for nearly a century now, whether you want to accept the reality or not. FYI, most personal flights do not require paperwork of any kind. > >> There are a lot of people who do not own a car; so what? >> >> There are lots of people who do not own a motorcycle; so what? >> >> There are lots of people who do not own an airplane; so what? > > Those are all the opposite of the ownership issue being discussed. > Your motives are now clear. I’m done with you. Only in you narrow world view. Just because something exists it does not mean everyone, or even a significant fraction of everyone, will want it. Your comment about motives is meaningless to me; I have no motives in regard to flying cars, airplanes, cars, sailboats, bicycles,or any other vehicle. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 11:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <npkec7$gpf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59074 |
I agree there. There has a recent announcement of a quad-copter style flying transport that is intended to be self-flying. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Jeff Findley" wrote in message news:MPG.3225ec6625cb825f9897db@news.eternal-september.org... In article <5qor8d-mk5.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > > American Journal of Nanomaterials > > Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research > > Article > > From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to > > Production > > of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. > > Robert Clark > > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States > > http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html > > > > Next stop: the space elevator. > > Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical. > > > Bob Clark > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize > > 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital > > launchers, to 'flying cars'. > > The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have > been lots of flying cars built. For one, they're super expensive. But, ignoring the expense for now... The huge problem with flying cars in my mind is building one that's simple for a "driver" to operate. The masses aren't going to all get a pilot's license. Heck, most people on the road shouldn't even have a driver's license based on how awful they drive and on how many wrecks they cause. Imagine them all flying cars right into each other! To make this work, you'd need self-flying cars! Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 11:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <npke95$gep$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59070 |
Ok, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole there. But even if these methods could produce arbitrarily long nanotubes at 1/10th the maximum measured nanotube strength, this would be a major change in materials science. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wrote in message news:5qor8d-mk5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > American Journal of Nanomaterials > Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article > From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production > of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. > Robert Clark > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States > http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html > > Next stop: the space elevator. Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical. > Bob Clark > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize > 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital > launchers, to 'flying cars'. The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have been lots of flying cars built. -- Jim Pennino --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ect09d-0bm.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #59081 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > Ok, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole there. But even if these methods > could produce arbitrarily long nanotubes at 1/10th the maximum measured > nanotube strength, this would be a major change in materials science. > > Bob Clark Only in a few niche applications where weight and strength are competing parameters. For the vast majority of things there is no incentive to build them from nanotubes. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize > 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital > launchers, to 'flying cars'. > This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: > > Nanotech: from air to space. > https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > wrote in message news:5qor8d-mk5.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> American Journal of Nanomaterials >> Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article >> From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production >> of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. >> Robert Clark >> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States >> http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html >> >> Next stop: the space elevator. > > Nope, the next stop would be ANYTHING practical. > >> Bob Clark >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize >> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital >> launchers, to 'flying cars'. > > The lack of flying cars has never been a materials problem. There have > been lots of flying cars built. > > -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 13:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <npfgrm$ika$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #59067 |
On 8/20/2016 1:37 PM, Robert Clark wrote: > American Journal of Nanomaterials > Vol. 4, No. 2, 2016, pp 39-43. doi: 10.12691/ajn-4-2-2 | Research Article > From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to > Production of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. > Robert Clark > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, Chester, United States > http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajn/4/2/2/index.html > > Next stop: the space elevator. > space elevator is a total joke, electric elevator? how much do the copper cables weigh ? Gasloine powered? how much gas and O2 weigh ? How does the astronough at the top, jump off into orbit ? how do you keep it from falling over ? Skyhook ? how do you keep it from wind blowing it over ? How much cement is needed for the base ? how many miles of guy wires ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 12:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9696f64e-9a5e-4148-a8ff-56b7f8882583@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #59071 |
Dear Sergio: On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:38:50 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: ... > space elevator is a total joke, First, imagine you have a bucket, a long rope, and you spin around swinging this bucket out. You are "Earth". The rope is the "tether" (the magic part). The bucket is a suitable rock used to keep the tether tight, and a "reservoir" of angular momentum... Carbon nanotubes can carry some current. So you might be able to run the elevator like an electric tram. > electric elevator? how much do the copper cables weigh ? Nano tubes may be electrically conductive. But what keeps you car moving up and down the road? An engine and fuel source. Or batteries. So it could be self-contained. > Gasloine powered? how much gas and O2 weigh ? Batteries. > How does the astronough at the top, jump off into orbit ? The "anchor" is placed to that it is just past geosynchronous. So being at the anchor, has you moving just a little bit too fast to be in a circular orbit, so you will be at the closest point of an elliptical orbit. > how do you keep it from falling over ? Skyhook ? Dropping the tether, and the tether itself is the magic part of this. Once up, it stays up just like your swung bucket stays outwards. > how do you keep it from wind blowing it over ? No real effect, since it only effects 1 or 2 miles of many thousands of miles of cable. The bigger effect will be "elevators" going up (will drag the tether westwards (slowing the Earth and anchor a bit)), and going down (will drag the tether eastwards (speeding the Earth and anchor a bit). > How much cement is needed for the base ? Minimal effect, if the system is balanced, since the anchor in space, can support the entire cable and any in-transit elevator cars. But the Earth is NOT a rigid body, so it will have to have some serious shock absorbers. > how many miles of guy wires ? None. They'd only make more stress on the tether. David A. Smith
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 08:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nprjom$5dm$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> |
| In reply to | #59067 |
Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> schrieb: > From Nanoscale to Macroscale: Applications of Nanotechnology to Production > of Bulk Ultra-Strong Materials. I've been involved in CNT application development a little bit myself. Let's just say it is _very_ difficult to get from theoretical properties to practical performance.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.astro
csiph-web