Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Ion drive for aircraft imminent. Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 02:54:54 -0000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 24 Sender: Jim Pennino Message-ID: References: Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="33e22a1fbc0d811ef1b054043b39a73e"; logging-data="26216"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ydP65cc56N/lYuvc8QxH4" User-Agent: tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.10 (i86pc)) Cancel-Lock: sha1:BotCdoziTG524qdIRWQLS5QAn7c= Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:603428 sci.space.policy:58649 rec.arts.sf.science:25449 sci.electronics.design:433429 In sci.physics krw wrote: > On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:00:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics John Larkin wrote: >>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:19:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> >> >>>>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