Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups	sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.astro, rec.arts.sf.science
Subject	Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.
Date	2016-08-27 20:14 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<lt899d-7vk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <npn6sg$7u6$1@dont-email.me> <s43vrbtlf87a1jkf463q3pl2tnoou6vu2s@4ax.com> <npq2m0$8iq$1@dont-email.me> <b3a1sbhsbc2irq1g87nkfqq4mbclclaphn@4ax.com> <npskrv$m85$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

Thread

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. 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. 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. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-08-27 08:41 +0000

csiph-web