Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #433303 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-01 11:09 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-11-08 18:48 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-01 11:09 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-01 08:51 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-11-01 14:27 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-01 22:01 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 09:16 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-03 08:33 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:29 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:35 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 12:20 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-06 12:23 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-06 16:28 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 19:13 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 10:06 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-01 10:20 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 11:24 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Phil Hobbs <pcdhobbs@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 14:41 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-11-01 14:53 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 15:09 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2016-11-02 08:14 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-11-02 10:29 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 15:14 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-02 12:10 +1100
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-01 18:03 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 10:00 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2016-11-03 09:24 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:51 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-06 16:37 -0600
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2016-11-07 02:28 +0100
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:03 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-08 11:17 -0600
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 17:53 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 12:09 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-13 12:04 -0600
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 20:34 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 17:50 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-13 20:12 -0600
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 17:37 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2016-11-08 15:07 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-08 18:43 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-08 16:19 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-08 19:43 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-13 10:53 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-13 12:09 -0600
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2016-11-03 05:58 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-03 08:35 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-03 17:26 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-11-03 11:01 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 09:48 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-03 08:41 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 12:22 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2016-11-03 10:45 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 16:09 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-04 21:09 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Phil Hobbs <pcdhobbs@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 14:28 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:29 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-07 18:37 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-07 15:31 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-07 21:46 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2016-11-07 14:40 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-07 18:18 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 03:39 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-07 20:51 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 07:13 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-08 12:28 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-08 13:33 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-08 22:05 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-08 18:45 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-09 00:13 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-08 19:46 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-09 01:05 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-11-09 18:26 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-09 20:03 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 19:21 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 08:40 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 02:55 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-14 06:02 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 11:31 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 05:54 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 13:47 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:35 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-15 00:04 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-14 13:37 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 18:52 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-11-14 14:56 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 13:17 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-14 12:53 -0600
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 19:19 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 18:57 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 11:27 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 05:52 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 13:56 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:47 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 23:58 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 22:07 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-14 22:09 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-11-15 20:34 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-15 18:01 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2016-11-15 18:59 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-11-16 04:33 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-16 02:52 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 21:42 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-16 09:05 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 02:13 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-16 03:02 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-16 20:32 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-16 02:46 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-14 17:30 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-14 04:08 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:49 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2016-11-03 11:18 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Bill Beaty <billb@eskimo.com> - 2016-11-06 22:19 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2016-11-01 10:36 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 09:28 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-01 18:19 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-11-01 14:13 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-02 00:00 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-01 22:05 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-02 02:54 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-02 20:20 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2016-11-03 02:24 +0100
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 02:02 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 07:41 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-01 19:10 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-01 22:06 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2016-11-01 19:12 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-02 02:57 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-01 20:38 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 20:40 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Phil Hobbs <pcdhobbs@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 18:03 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Ingvald44 <noone@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-04 12:33 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 14:24 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-03 10:35 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:39 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-06 13:12 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-06 19:54 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 11:37 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-01 19:08 -0500
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2016-11-02 00:33 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-11-03 01:05 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-03 17:43 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-11-04 15:38 -0400
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Bill Martin <wwm@wwmartin.net> - 2016-11-02 11:47 -0700
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. jack4747@gmail.com - 2016-11-08 06:17 -0800
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Ralph Barone <ralph@invalid.com> - 2016-11-08 15:21 +0000
Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-08 18:48 -0500
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 21:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uhon2cpsog0rsrb18c3c3pvo40kd5gsc3r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #435813 |
Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the
>>>>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>>>>>> with an engine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a
>>>>>> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.
>>>>>
>>>>> That might be /your/ definition,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand that. What are you trying to say.
>>>
>>
>> That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways
>> with standard definitions.
>>
>>>
>>>>> ... but it is only valid
>>>>> in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
>>>>> converse with other people, it helps to use words in
>>>>> a standard way. The first google result gives:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
>>>>> airplane
>>>>> noun
>>>>> 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
>>>>> upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
>>>>> fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to
>>>> use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary
>>>> definitions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A definition is a definition. You are struggling
>>> in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why!
>>>
>>
>> All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are.
>>
>
>If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the
>dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it?
>
As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche'
definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not
'impressive' at all. Use the main definition.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 09:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kjVWz.158273$EP.90568@fx23.am4> |
| In reply to | #435852 |
On 16/11/16 04:42, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: > >> On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : >>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the >>>>>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial >>>>>>>>>> airliners :) >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something >>>>>>>>> with an engine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a >>>>>>> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle. >>>>>> >>>>>> That might be /your/ definition, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't understand that. What are you trying to say. >>>> >>> >>> That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways >>> with standard definitions. >>> >>>> >>>>>> ... but it is only valid >>>>>> in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to >>>>>> converse with other people, it helps to use words in >>>>>> a standard way. The first google result gives: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane >>>>>> airplane >>>>>> noun >>>>>> 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the >>>>>> upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its >>>>>> fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, >>>>>> etc. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to >>>>> use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary >>>>> definitions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> A definition is a definition. You are struggling >>>> in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why! >>>> >>> >>> All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are. >>> >> >> If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the >> dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it? >> > > As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche' > definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not > 'impressive' at all. Use the main definition. So "circuit" should only be used to mean "an act or instance of going or moving around." "Circuit" should never be used to mean "the complete path of an electric current, including the generating apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors." because that's only the *9th* definition. When you are in a hole, stop digging :) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/circuit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 02:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <un8o2c1m41p6gcvrtjvfq0vlaj8fu2rca8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #435863 |
Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 16/11/16 04:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the
>>>>>>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial
>>>>>>>>>>> airliners :)
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something
>>>>>>>>>> with an engine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a
>>>>>>>> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That might be /your/ definition,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand that. What are you trying to say.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways
>>>> with standard definitions.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... but it is only valid
>>>>>>> in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to
>>>>>>> converse with other people, it helps to use words in
>>>>>>> a standard way. The first google result gives:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane
>>>>>>> airplane
>>>>>>> noun
>>>>>>> 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the
>>>>>>> upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its
>>>>>>> fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion,
>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to
>>>>>> use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary
>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A definition is a definition. You are struggling
>>>>> in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the
>>> dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it?
>>>
>>
>> As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche'
>> definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not
>> 'impressive' at all. Use the main definition.
>
>So "circuit" should only be used to mean "an act or
>instance of going or moving around."
>"Circuit" should never be used to mean "the complete
>path of an electric current, including the generating
>apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors."
>because that's only the *9th* definition.
>
I see you don't know the difference between a secondary definition and
a different definition. I'm unsurprised at this.
>
>When you are in a hole, stop digging :)
>
Great advice. You should put down your shovel and take it.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 03:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8e098579-0c81-4933-9de3-3e9e3063eeb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #435864 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 8:13:37 PM UTC+11, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 16/11/16 04:42, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >> Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: > >> > >>> On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : > >>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the > >>>>>>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial > >>>>>>>>>>> airliners :) > >>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without > >>>>>>>>>> something with an engine. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a > >>>>>>>> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That might be /your/ definition, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't understand that. What are you trying to say. > >>>> > >>>> That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways > >>>> with standard definitions. Nobody actually does. Language doesn't work like that. > >>>>>>> ... but it is only valid > >>>>>>> in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to > >>>>>>> converse with other people, it helps to use words in > >>>>>>> a standard way. The first google result gives: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane > >>>>>>> airplane > >>>>>>> noun > >>>>>>> 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the > >>>>>>> upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its > >>>>>>> fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, > >>>>>>> etc. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to > >>>>>> use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary > >>>>>> definitions. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> A definition is a definition. You are struggling > >>>>> in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why! > >>>> > >>>> All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are. > >>> > >>> If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the > >>> dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it? > >> > >> As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche' > >> definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not > >> 'impressive' at all. Use the main definition. > > > >So "circuit" should only be used to mean "an act or > >instance of going or moving around." > >"Circuit" should never be used to mean "the complete > >path of an electric current, including the generating > >apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors." > >because that's only the *9th* definition. > > I see you don't know the difference between a secondary definition and > a different definition. There isn't one. When words can be used to mean different things, the "primary definition" is the meaning the user intended, which can usually be deduced from context. The first definition in a dictionary may have been the one most frequently encountered when the dictionary was written, but there's no guarantee of this. > I'm unsurprised at this. Your lack of surprise is based on a misapprehension. You think you know what you are talking about, but what you have written makes it clear that you don't. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 20:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <f32q2cluefa0o74i7s4v049u9akjsgm5j3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #435863 |
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:05:20 +0000, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >On 16/11/16 04:42, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: >> >>> On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : >>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the >>>>>>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial >>>>>>>>>>> airliners :) >>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something >>>>>>>>>> with an engine. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a >>>>>>>> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That might be /your/ definition, >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand that. What are you trying to say. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways >>>> with standard definitions. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> ... but it is only valid >>>>>>> in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to >>>>>>> converse with other people, it helps to use words in >>>>>>> a standard way. The first google result gives: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane >>>>>>> airplane >>>>>>> noun >>>>>>> 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the >>>>>>> upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its >>>>>>> fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, >>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to >>>>>> use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary >>>>>> definitions. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A definition is a definition. You are struggling >>>>> in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why! >>>>> >>>> >>>> All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are. >>>> >>> >>> If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the >>> dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it? >>> >> >> As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche' >> definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not >> 'impressive' at all. Use the main definition. > >So "circuit" should only be used to mean "an act or >instance of going or moving around." >"Circuit" should never be used to mean "the complete >path of an electric current, including the generating >apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors." >because that's only the *9th* definition. > >When you are in a hole, stop digging :) > >http://www.dictionary.com/browse/circuit Or, heaven forbid, a schematic (even without all the return current paths drawn).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 02:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aa79e11d-2a8c-41b3-9336-7d4669cb7392@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #435852 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 3:43:00 PM UTC+11, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote: > > >On Nov/15/2016 at 12:07 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : > >> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> On 14/11/16 19:47, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >>>>>>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the > >>>>>>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial > >>>>>>>>> airliners :) > >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something > >>>>>>>> with an engine. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a > >>>>>> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle. > >>>>> > >>>>> That might be /your/ definition, > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Yeah, because I own a dictionary. You should try buying one. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I don't understand that. What are you trying to say. > >>> > >> > >> That you don't understand. Perhaps if you used words in standard ways > >> with standard definitions. > >> > >>> > >>>>> ... but it is only valid > >>>>> in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to > >>>>> converse with other people, it helps to use words in > >>>>> a standard way. The first google result gives: > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane > >>>>> airplane > >>>>> noun > >>>>> 1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the > >>>>> upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its > >>>>> fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, > >>>>> etc. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to > >>>> use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary > >>>> definitions. > >>>> > >>> > >>> A definition is a definition. You are struggling > >>> in a mildly amusing way. I'm really not sure why! > >>> > >> > >> All definitions are not created equal, any more than people are. > >> > > > >If I understand you correctly we shouldn't use definitions from the > >dictionary when that doesn't suit you. Is that it? > > > > As usual, you don't understand me. Using secondary 'niche' > definitions to try to defend a point is a mug's game and not > 'impressive' at all. Use the main definition. The way a word is used is determined by the speaker's intention. If the speaker had a "secondary niche definition" in mind, that's the meaning they intended to convey, and the fact that the intention didn't match a more frequently printed definition is beside the point. You don't want to understand that most people regard gliders as a kind of aeroplane (or airplane in your dialect). Citing a particular definition of the word from a particular dictionary doesn't provide the kind of support for you point of view that you like to imagine. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 17:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ca6acfed-32d8-4513-a54f-71bc27f61b47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #435584 |
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 6:47:21 AM UTC+11, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 14/11/16 12:52, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> On 14/11/16 09:55, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >>>> Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the > >>>>>> engines and airplanes don't go up. > >>>>> > >>>>> Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial > >>>>> airliners :) > >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something > >>>> with an engine. > >>> > >>> Firstly, they are extremely advanced airplanes: > >>> > >> > >> Nope. No engine means they aren't an airplane. An airplane is a > >> fixed wing heavier than air powered vehicle. > > > >That might be /your/ definition, > > > > Yeah, because I own a dictionary. There are bunch that you might have bought. Contemplate the difference between the Concise Oxford Dictionary and the Complete Oxford Dictionary. The Complete Oxford prefers aeroplane (regarding airplane as an Americanism). > You should try buying one. You should try buying one that offers more than one definition of a word, and work on the idea that a dictionary documents the usual way a word is used, rather that what it means in in every situation. > >... but it is only valid > >in a Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee sense. If you want to > >converse with other people, it helps to use words in > >a standard way. The first google result gives: > > > >http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airplane > >airplane > >noun > >1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the > >upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its > >fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, > >etc. > > > > There you go. If YOU want to converse with other people, it helps to > use words in a standard way and not cling to broadened secondary > definitions. Sadly, that isn't how language works. The broader secondary definitions cover the way people use the word some of the time, and the dictionary's jib is to document that, not to prescribe it. > >2. any similar heavier-than-air aircraft, as a > >glider or helicopter. > > > > > >>> Secondly, neither winches nor tugs will take a glider up > >>> to 10k/20k/30k/ft (40k/50kft in rare cases!) - and can't > >>> even get there on their own! It is unusual for a tug to take > >>> a glider above 3kft over here; 2kft is the normal release > >>> height. > >>> > >> > >> So? > >> > > > >It disproves your contention that aircraft need engines > >to go up. > > > > Except gliders, while aircraft, are not airplanes. Only if you think you can restrict the use of the word to the phrase a particular dictionary - small - dictionary uses to illustrate it's usual meaning. > Nice try changing the wording to claim I said something I didn't say, > though. Now, how many of those gliders left the grounds or got to their > launch point without an engine? Impossible to say. Gliders kept in hangars at small airports tend to get pushed to the winch or bungee chord, and you can certainly stretch a bungee cord without an engine, though it takes while. > >>> Finally, you have too little imagination about how to launch > >>> a glider. Gravity, bungees, and (in true Fred Flintstone style) > >>> horses are also used. > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la3rb9LfG0Q > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxbdXqEvxE0 > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86rOfjhsIIM > >>> > >>> Now, what was that about "up there" and "without an engine"? > >> > >> Yes, you can build a glider, move it to the launch site by ox cart, > >> and throw it off a cliff. You can lift it with balloons. You can > >> even try farting magic pixie dust on them. But that's not how they're > >> usually transported and launched. > > > >True, and balloons have been used, but I'm skeptical > >about pixie dust. But those are separate points not > >related to whether you need engines to go up. > > Still not an airplane. Balloons have 'engines' (that big burning > thing under the envelope). Helium balloons don't. Back when town gas was half hydrogen, it could be - and was - used to inflate balloons. The fire risk was appreciable. And a propane burner isn't usually described as an engine. My small dictionary defines an engine as any device designed to convert energy into mechanical work, which would make the balloon the engine, rather than the propane burner. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 04:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c2d5ebb5-7587-42a1-91d3-cf26d251ad83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #435522 |
On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:56:04 PM UTC+11, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 14/11/16 02:21, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Aircraft engines don't lift anything. > >>> > >> > >> Of course they do. It's that whole Lift/Drag thing. Remove the > >> engines and airplanes don't go up. > > > >Except when they do, and that can be higher than commercial > >airliners :) > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Gliders > > > > Gliders aren't airplanes and they don't get up there without something > with an engine. Gliders are most definitely airplanes. They do get launched by winches or catapults, or are sometimes towed into the air by powered aircraft, but once in the air they stay aloft by finding rising air currents and riding them upwards. Search on "thermal soaring", "slope soaring" and "wave soaring". The record flight altitudes seem to be set by people who exploit the predictable standing waves that form over mountains. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 17:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6v9sed-svf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #433621 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > The commonly used name for these EHD devices made by amateurs is "lifters". > The problem with their not being able to fly independently is the power > supplies are so heavy. Look for example at the lifter here: > > How to: "Lifter" Power Supply. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdsEVjBpBU > > Quite commonly the lifters weigh, and the thrust they can produce, is in the > range of grams but the power supplies weigh in the range of kilograms. So > how do you solve that problem? > > Let me give an analogy. Many people are aware of the technical innovations > the Wright brothers made to be able to develop a successful flying machine. > They made their own wind tunnel. They tested various air foils to find > efficient ones of high lift. They developed a warping wing technique for > steering. > > However, not as well known is the one key innovation they made for which all > those other innovations would have been worthless. When many scientists of > the time after doing a mathematical analysis asserted that no heavier-than > air flying machine could work, oddly enough they were *right*. But the > problem was, they were basing this on the power sources widely known at the > time, steam engines. But the steam engines were so inefficient they could > not supply sufficient power for their weight. They were too heavy. > > Around the time of the Wright brothers though the internal combustion > gasoline engine was coming into use for automobiles, but they were still too > heavy for the Wright brothers use. So the one *key* innovation the Wright > brothers made was that they designed and built their OWN lightweight > internal combustion engine. > > Now, back to the EHD propulsion method. The power supplies are too heavy, so > what can we do about that? Well, you can make them out of lightweight > materials. That's a possible route to follow, but most amateur and even > professional experimenters have used ready made power supplies or used ready > made parts to build them. The result is they are all pretty standard weight > for the power they put out. > > But let's analyze this further, *why* are the power supplies so heavy? It > turns out the reason they are so heavy is the voltage needed for the ion > propulsion method is in the range of tens of thousands of volts, frequently > as high as 50,000 volts. This then requires heavy transformers to produce > voltage this high. Alright then, can we find a way to reduce the required > voltage? > > Yes! It turns out if you reduce the diameter of the wires doing the > ionization of the air then the required voltage is reduced. In fact, > according to the math if the wires are at the nanoscale then the required > voltage might be reduced to only tens of volts instead of tens of thousands > of volts. For the small-scale lifters, if you used now wires at the > nanoscale, it may be they could be powered by a couple of 9-volt batteries > connected in series. > > So that's the key point, for nanowires the voltage required for ionization > is severely reduced. This is the content of Peek's Law: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek%27s_law > > > Bob Clark The total power required is fixed by physics which means nanoscale wires in the power supply will melt due to I^2*R losses unless they are also superconductors. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mrdarrett@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 11:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33bf9a60-f93c-46e6-8e8b-854f55f575c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433688 |
On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 11:01:07 AM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > > The commonly used name for these EHD devices made by amateurs is "lifters". > > The problem with their not being able to fly independently is the power > > supplies are so heavy. Look for example at the lifter here: > > > > How to: "Lifter" Power Supply. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdsEVjBpBU > > > > Quite commonly the lifters weigh, and the thrust they can produce, is in the > > range of grams but the power supplies weigh in the range of kilograms. So > > how do you solve that problem? > > > > Let me give an analogy. Many people are aware of the technical innovations > > the Wright brothers made to be able to develop a successful flying machine. > > They made their own wind tunnel. They tested various air foils to find > > efficient ones of high lift. They developed a warping wing technique for > > steering. > > > > However, not as well known is the one key innovation they made for which all > > those other innovations would have been worthless. When many scientists of > > the time after doing a mathematical analysis asserted that no heavier-than > > air flying machine could work, oddly enough they were *right*. But the > > problem was, they were basing this on the power sources widely known at the > > time, steam engines. But the steam engines were so inefficient they could > > not supply sufficient power for their weight. They were too heavy. > > > > Around the time of the Wright brothers though the internal combustion > > gasoline engine was coming into use for automobiles, but they were still too > > heavy for the Wright brothers use. So the one *key* innovation the Wright > > brothers made was that they designed and built their OWN lightweight > > internal combustion engine. > > > > Now, back to the EHD propulsion method. The power supplies are too heavy, so > > what can we do about that? Well, you can make them out of lightweight > > materials. That's a possible route to follow, but most amateur and even > > professional experimenters have used ready made power supplies or used ready > > made parts to build them. The result is they are all pretty standard weight > > for the power they put out. > > > > But let's analyze this further, *why* are the power supplies so heavy? It > > turns out the reason they are so heavy is the voltage needed for the ion > > propulsion method is in the range of tens of thousands of volts, frequently > > as high as 50,000 volts. This then requires heavy transformers to produce > > voltage this high. Alright then, can we find a way to reduce the required > > voltage? > > > > Yes! It turns out if you reduce the diameter of the wires doing the > > ionization of the air then the required voltage is reduced. In fact, > > according to the math if the wires are at the nanoscale then the required > > voltage might be reduced to only tens of volts instead of tens of thousands > > of volts. For the small-scale lifters, if you used now wires at the > > nanoscale, it may be they could be powered by a couple of 9-volt batteries > > connected in series. > > > > So that's the key point, for nanowires the voltage required for ionization > > is severely reduced. This is the content of Peek's Law: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek%27s_law > > > > > > Bob Clark > > The total power required is fixed by physics which means nanoscale > wires in the power supply will melt due to I^2*R losses unless they > are also superconductors. > > -- > Jim Pennino Sure, why not toss in some liquid nitrogen cooling while we're at it. :) A bicycle is looking better and better. Maybe even a wingsuit. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Beaty <billb@eskimo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 22:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a5326ccb-54d7-4c12-98b9-edcf4c807550@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #433621 |
On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 6:48:15 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark wrote: > voltage might be reduced to only tens of volts instead of tens of thousands > of volts. For the small-scale lifters, if you used now wires at the > nanoscale, it may be they could be powered by a couple of 9-volt batteries > connected in series. No, that just lets us easily exceed Work Function barrier on the ionization emitter. A separate problem is the accelerating voltage needed as an air pump. The charge-density of ionized air must be fairly small, otherwise its own fields override the fields applied for thrust/steering. The higher the accelerating potential, the higher the charge density can be, and the larger the wattage going into accelerating some air. Light weight: piezo transformers. Perhaps also eliminate all the HV rectifiers by having your nano-emitters produce asymmetrical output (perhaps spewing negative ions when pure AC is applied.) But only if AC followed by voltage multipliers isn't the best solution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bjkh1cdgjnkus5t44vsb08h2mfs1ub84lt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #433324 |
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT), mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:09:00 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark wrote:
>> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to
>> the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes:
>>
>> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft".
>> Clark R*
>> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA
>> Review Article
>> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date:
>> October 20, 2016
>> Abstract
>> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying cars,
>> and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make possible the
>> long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion method though than
>> propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by electric fields known as
>> electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works by ionizing air then using
>> electric fields to propel the charged air molecules rearward, thus producing
>> thrust. It's quite analogous to the famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has
>> been known at least since the sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive,
>> the thrust is so low. So far the EHD craft have not been able to lift both
>> themselves and their power supplies. The ones made so far leave the power
>> supply on the ground and connect to the craft through power cables. But the
>> equations of EHD suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for
>> thinner ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this
>> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for the
>> craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and the
>> power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics suggests. Note
>> that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven craft become obsolete.
>> Also, intermediate range automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD
>> craft, so a large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated,
>> replaced by this zero-emission travel method. In regards to space
>> propulsion, since EHD is so similar to ion drive, using components at the
>> nanoscale may also work to improve the thrust of ion drive. This would be
>> important to shortening the flight times of spacecraft using such drives.
>> This is important not just for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that
>> use such ion drives to reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the
>> ion drives used have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to
>> reach GEO, resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite
>> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would reduce
>> the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue.
>> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; Ionic
>> wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive
>> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63
>>
>> Bob Clark
>>
>
>
>
>Do they work when it's raining / in humid environments?
>
>Michael
Another sink for technology-ignorant sucker investors.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I'm looking for work... see my website.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 09:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nvfe09$dn0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #433324 |
Good question. You can make one of these EHD devices yourself, commonly called "lifters", to test this. Do a web search on: "lifters" and "power supply" for the many explanations online for how to make them. My guess is since it's the intense electric fields that is creating the ionization they will still work in high humidity or rain. Note also the EHD effect also works with liquids. 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:5ec5d120-948f-4013-a835-cd5ae4e4dd19@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:09:00 AM UTC-7, Robert Clark wrote: > Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to > the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > > Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". > Clark R* > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA > Review Article > Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: > October 20, 2016 > Abstract > Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying > cars, > and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make possible the > long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion method though than > propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by electric fields known as > electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works by ionizing air then using > electric fields to propel the charged air molecules rearward, thus > producing > thrust. It's quite analogous to the famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD > has > been known at least since the sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, > the thrust is so low. So far the EHD craft have not been able to lift both > themselves and their power supplies. The ones made so far leave the power > supply on the ground and connect to the craft through power cables. But > the > equations of EHD suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for > thinner ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then > this > important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for the > craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and the > power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics suggests. > Note > that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven craft become > obsolete. > Also, intermediate range automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD > craft, so a large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated, > replaced by this zero-emission travel method. In regards to space > propulsion, since EHD is so similar to ion drive, using components at the > nanoscale may also work to improve the thrust of ion drive. This would be > important to shortening the flight times of spacecraft using such drives. > This is important not just for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that > use such ion drives to reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, > the > ion drives used have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites > to > reach GEO, resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the > satellite > companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would reduce > the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. > Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; > Ionic > wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive > https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 > > Bob Clark > Do they work when it's raining / in humid environments? Michael --- 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 | 2016-11-01 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mt2ned-l6s.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #433303 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to > the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: > > Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". > Clark R* > Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA > Review Article > Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: > October 20, 2016 > Abstract > Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying cars, > and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make possible the > long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion method though than > propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by electric fields known as > electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works by ionizing air then using > electric fields to propel the charged air molecules rearward, thus producing > thrust. It's quite analogous to the famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has > been known at least since the sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, > the thrust is so low. So far the EHD craft have not been able to lift both > themselves and their power supplies. The ones made so far leave the power > supply on the ground and connect to the craft through power cables. But the > equations of EHD suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for > thinner ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this > important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for the > craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and the > power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics suggests. Note > that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven craft become obsolete. > Also, intermediate range automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD > craft, so a large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated, > replaced by this zero-emission travel method. In regards to space > propulsion, since EHD is so similar to ion drive, using components at the > nanoscale may also work to improve the thrust of ion drive. This would be > important to shortening the flight times of spacecraft using such drives. > This is important not just for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that > use such ion drives to reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the > ion drives used have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to > reach GEO, resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite > companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would reduce > the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. > Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; Ionic > wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive > https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 > > 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/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, sure, nanotubes are going to revolutionize the world any day now, just like fusion, a cure for the common cold, and peace in the Middle East. BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do with propulsion methods. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 14:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pj0i1clkovfa8lc3c21071bq92ifnh2e11@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #433340 |
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> Nanotechnology makes possible an "ion drive" for air vehicles analogous to >> the famous ion drive of NASA's deep space probes: >> >> Carbon nanotubes for "Ionic Wind" Craft or "Ionocraft". >> Clark R* >> Department of Mathematics, Widener University, USA >> Review Article >> Volume 1 Issue 2 / Received Date: September 26, 2016 / Published Date: >> October 20, 2016 >> Abstract >> Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund once famously said, "We wanted flying cars, >> and we got 140 characters."But nanotechnology now does make possible the >> long desired flying cars. It's a different propulsion method though than >> propellers or jets however. It's propulsion by electric fields known as >> electrohydrodynamic propulsion (EHD). It works by ionizing air then using >> electric fields to propel the charged air molecules rearward, thus producing >> thrust. It's quite analogous to the famous space ion drive of NASA. EHD has >> been known at least since the sixties. Its problem is, as with ion drive, >> the thrust is so low. So far the EHD craft have not been able to lift both >> themselves and their power supplies. The ones made so far leave the power >> supply on the ground and connect to the craft through power cables. But the >> equations of EHD suggest the thrust for the power required gets larger for >> thinner ionizing wires. In fact if the wires are at the nanoscale then this >> important thrust-to-power ratio can be a hundred times higher than for the >> craft constructed so far. This would be enough to lift the craft and the >> power supply. This research is to prove what the mathematics suggests. Note >> that if it works then all propeller and rotor driven craft become obsolete. >> Also, intermediate range automobile travel would be taken over by the EHD >> craft, so a large proportion of carbon-emissions would be eliminated, >> replaced by this zero-emission travel method. In regards to space >> propulsion, since EHD is so similar to ion drive, using components at the >> nanoscale may also work to improve the thrust of ion drive. This would be >> important to shortening the flight times of spacecraft using such drives. >> This is important not just for robotic spacecraft but also satellites that >> use such ion drives to reach their final GEO destinations. As it is now, the >> ion drives used have such low thrust it takes months for such satellites to >> reach GEO, resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue to the satellite >> companies. Being able to increase the thrust of these drives would reduce >> the flight time, and therefore reduce this lost revenue. >> Keywords: Electrohydrodynamic propulsion; Carbon nanotubes; Nanowires; Ionic >> wind; Ionocraft; Plasma drive >> https://medwinpublishers.com/NNOA/volume.php?volumeId=23&issueId=63 >> >> 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/ >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Yeah, sure, nanotubes are going to revolutionize the world any day now, >just like fusion, a cure for the common cold, and peace in the Middle East. > >BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >with propulsion methods. > But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 00:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mumned-rr.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #433367 |
In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: <snip> >>BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>with propulsion methods. >> > > But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable > way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. You do know helicopters spend a fair amount of time not traveling, don't you, but that has nothing to do with flying cars. The cost of the engine is a tiny fraction of the cost of developing, certifying, manufacturing and marketing a flying car, or a flying anything for that matter. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 22:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vdii1c184oduu817ou7dtr5r18ob5il78f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #433383 |
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:00:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > ><snip> > >>>BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>>with propulsion methods. >>> >> >> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable >> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. > >You do know helicopters spend a fair amount of time not traveling, don't >you, but that has nothing to do with flying cars. Cars spend a fair amount of time not driving, too. So? > >The cost of the engine is a tiny fraction of the cost of developing, >certifying, manufacturing and marketing a flying car, or a flying >anything for that matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 02:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u41oed-n02.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #433419 |
In sci.physics krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:00:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>>>with propulsion methods. >>>> >>> >>> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable >>> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. >> >>You do know helicopters spend a fair amount of time not traveling, don't >>you, but that has nothing to do with flying cars. > > Cars spend a fair amount of time not driving, too. So? Not at close to full output power. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 20:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vk0l1cddlh1c15c3le4g81k2qg2l272olb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #433429 |
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 02:54:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:00:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>>BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>>>>with propulsion methods. >>>>> >>>> >>>> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable >>>> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. >>> >>>You do know helicopters spend a fair amount of time not traveling, don't >>>you, but that has nothing to do with flying cars. >> >> Cars spend a fair amount of time not driving, too. So? > >Not at close to full output power. Helicopters don't have a throttle or an "off" button?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 02:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <581a91df$0$1799$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl> |
| In reply to | #433550 |
On 03.11.16 1:20, krw wrote: > On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 02:54:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:00:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>> BTW, the lack of commercial success for flying cars has nothing to do >>>>>> with propulsion methods. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But propulsion does matter, in the sense that there is no affordable >>>>> way to make a flying car. Helicopters get terrible gas mileage. >>>> >>>> You do know helicopters spend a fair amount of time not traveling, don't >>>> you, but that has nothing to do with flying cars. >>> >>> Cars spend a fair amount of time not driving, too. So? >> >> Not at close to full output power. > > Helicopters don't have a throttle or an "off" button? > Yes, but only to be used at the right altitude.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web