Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #593948 > unrolled thread

Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#593948 — Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

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.

  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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#594183

In sci.space.policy 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.

There was an awful lot of "might" and "may" in that article.  Nothing
that suggested anyone has gotten a sufficiently strong construct out
to say a meter or even 10cm.

rick jones
-- 
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594486

Thanks for taking the time to read it. Right, these now are just proposals. 
All of them though would be easy and low cost to test for nanotechnology 
research labs. So considering the the billion dollar benefit in producing 
structures a hundred times stronger than steel at 1/5th the weight, the 
benefit to risk ratio is huge.
What goes into the risk calculation tough has to be consideration of the 
likelihood they would work. For the simply tying the nanotubes proposal, as 
I discussed in the article it has already been proven tying them together 
can give lighter weight conducting wires than copper wires. And it is known 
that tying ropes together can give ropes 80% to 90% the strength of the 
component ropes.
For the laser irradiation proposal nanotubes were able to be combined by 
illuminating the nanotube ends with a resulting strength close to the 300 
Mpa(megapascals) tensile strength of the component nanotubes. It needs to be 
tested though using nanotubes of the greatest measured strength at above 100 
Gpa(gigapascals).

  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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Rick Jones"  wrote in message news:npf7ns$8mc$1@news.hpeswlab.net...

In sci.space.policy 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.

There was an awful lot of "might" and "may" in that article.  Nothing
that suggested anyone has gotten a sufficiently strong construct out
to say a meter or even 10cm.

rick jones
-- 
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594491

"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:

>Thanks for taking the time to read it. Right, these now are just proposals. 
>All of them though would be easy and low cost to test for nanotechnology 
>research labs. 

Everything is always "easy and low cost" until someone has to actually
build something and make it work.


-- 
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594193

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]

#594303

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594323

In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> 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

Neither the FAA nor any other aviation authority on the planet is going
to allow non-pilots into the airspace system.

So there is the first problem, you will HAVE to be a pilot to fly a 
flying car.

Fully autonomous aircraft are not going to happen any time soon.

Witness the current hoopla over drones to get a feel for the regulatory
temperment; you now have to register what amounts to model airplanes
with the FAA.

The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success
is economics; you have to be a pilot, which isn't cheap, they cost
a LOT to build and certify to two sets of sometimes conflicting
regulations, and the market for such a thing is tiny. 

Materials have never been an issue.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594494

For your reference, records indicate that 
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success
> is economics

No, it’s simply because they’re a stupid outdated SF concept birthed 
from a car-crazed society.  Once you have a vehicle that can fly between 
locations, it makes zero sense to also make it suitable for driving on 
roads.  Who in their right mind is going to *drive* anywhere they could 
just fly to?  Who is going trust that a roadworthy vehicle after miles 
of driving is going to remain airworthy?

Eliminate the “economics” problems and flying cars still make no sense.  
Imagine a world where everyone is Superman.  Superman does not drive to 
the rescue.  Only motorheads ever thought flying cars were a good idea.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594496

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success
>> is economics
> 
> No, its simply because theyre a stupid outdated SF concept birthed 
> from a car-crazed society.  Once you have a vehicle that can fly between 
> locations, it makes zero sense to also make it suitable for driving on 
> roads.  Who in their right mind is going to *drive* anywhere they could 
> just fly to?  Who is going trust that a roadworthy vehicle after miles 
> of driving is going to remain airworthy?

In the real world you would never be allowed to land and take off just
anywhere for a whole lot of reasons, so you would still need to drive
some distance. Designated areas, if such were to ever become common,
would likely be at least 10 to 20 miles apart.

In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594660

For your reference, records indicate that 
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy.

Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car!

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594662

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy.
> 
> Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car!

There have been lots of flying cars made since the 1930's that worked.

Here's one from 1949 that almost made it into production:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar

Note especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar#N102D



 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594777

For your reference, records indicate that 
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> > For your reference, records indicate that 
> > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > 
> >> In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy.
> > 
> > Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car!
> 
> There have been lots of flying cars made since the 1930's that worked.
> 
> Here's one from 1949 that almost made it into production:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar
> 
> Note especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar#N102D

You, too, support my point.  Clearly it didn’t “work” if it didn’t 
even make it into production, was not bought in quantity, and did not 
regularly function as *both* a ground and air commuter vehicle.

That’s why I made the point of keeping the structure of such a 
vehicle airworthy.  It may not be a huge deal if your car gets a door 
dinged in a parking lot by another car or grocery cart.  Or hail 
damage or whatever else we don’t think twice about subjecting cars to 
because we don’t have to think about them falling out of the sky.  
Not so with the ill-conceived flying car, which is why they remain a 
fiction, and a *poor* fiction at that..

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594797

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>> > For your reference, records indicate that 
>> > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> > 
>> >> In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy.
>> > 
>> > Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car!
>> 
>> There have been lots of flying cars made since the 1930's that worked.
>> 
>> Here's one from 1949 that almost made it into production:
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar
>> 
>> Note especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar#N102D
> 
> You, too, support my point.  Clearly it didntwork if it didn’
> even make it into production, was not bought in quantity, and did not 
> regularly function as *both* a ground and air commuter vehicle.

Working and commercial success are two entirely different things.

You really need to go buy a dictionary and learn the real meaning of
the words you use.
 
> Thats why I made the point of keeping the structure of such a 
> vehicle airworthy.  It may not be a huge deal if your car gets a door 
> dinged in a parking lot by another car or grocery cart.  Or hail 
> damage or whatever else we dont think twice about subjecting cars to 
> because we dont have to think about them falling out of the sky.  
> Not so with the ill-conceived flying car, which is why they remain a 
> fiction, and a *poor* fiction at that..

Flying cars have not been a fiction since the first one flew many decades
ago.

Again, you really need to go buy a dictionary and learn the real meaning of
the words you use.

Buying a flying car to go to the local store would be silly on many
levels.

Aircraft have always been subject to hail damage.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594816

Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

>For your reference, records indicate that 
>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>> > For your reference, records indicate that 
>> > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> > 
>> >> In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy.
>> > 
>> > Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car!
>> 
>> There have been lots of flying cars made since the 1930's that worked.
>> 
>> Here's one from 1949 that almost made it into production:
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar
>> 
>> Note especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar#N102D
>
>You, too, support my point.  Clearly it didn’t “work” if it didn’t 
>even make it into production, was not bought in quantity, and did not 
>regularly function as *both* a ground and air commuter vehicle.
>
>That’s why I made the point of keeping the structure of such a 
>vehicle airworthy.  It may not be a huge deal if your car gets a door 
>dinged in a parking lot by another car or grocery cart.  Or hail 
>damage or whatever else we don’t think twice about subjecting cars to 
>because we don’t have to think about them falling out of the sky.  
>Not so with the ill-conceived flying car, which is why they remain a 
>fiction, and a *poor* fiction at that..
>

Have you ever looked at the fuselage of a GA aircraft?  The real
problem with a 'flying car' these days would getting them past the CAR
regulations.  The airplane side is easy.


-- 
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
 truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
                               -- Thomas Jefferson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594881

For your reference, records indicate that 
Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:

> Have you ever looked at the fuselage of a GA aircraft?  The real
> problem with a 'flying car' these days would getting them past the CAR
> regulations.  The airplane side is easy.

Thank you for continuing to support my point.  I still argue that even 
in a *SF* universe, it is tough to make a case for a flying car.  Even 
if you hand wave all the tech and regs and costs, very few worlds can 
be created where it makes sense to drive around in a vehicle that can 
fly.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594893

Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

>For your reference, records indicate that 
>Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Have you ever looked at the fuselage of a GA aircraft?  The real
>> problem with a 'flying car' these days would getting them past the CAR
>> regulations.  The airplane side is easy.
>
>Thank you for continuing to support my point.  
>

Thank you for continuing to be a raving dipshit.  You've convinced me
you aren't worth wasting time on.


-- 
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
 truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
                               -- Thomas Jefferson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594895

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Have you ever looked at the fuselage of a GA aircraft?  The real
>> problem with a 'flying car' these days would getting them past the CAR
>> regulations.  The airplane side is easy.
> 
> Thank you for continuing to support my point.  I still argue that even 
> in a *SF* universe, it is tough to make a case for a flying car.  Even 
> if you hand wave all the tech and regs and costs, very few worlds can 
> be created where it makes sense to drive around in a vehicle that can 
> fly.

Perhaps for someone with a very limited world view.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594722

Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

>For your reference, records indicate that 
>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In the real world, driving a flying car has never made it not airworthy.
>
>Because in the real world, *nobody* is driving a flying car!
>

I think you've just asserted that none of the many vehicles described
in this article ever actually existed in the real world.  You seem to
be wrong...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadable_aircraft#List_of_roadable_aircraft


-- 
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594774

For your reference, records indicate that 
Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think you've just asserted that none of the many vehicles described
> in this article ever actually existed in the real world.  You seem to
> be wrong...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadable_aircraft#List_of_roadable_aircraft

Hahahahaha!  No, I’m “asserting” that you apparently don’t know how 
to read the “Status” column in the list you have, with entries 
ranging from “Concept” to “Crashed”.  None are “Click to buy one” or 
“1% of pilots regularly use it”.

Pointing to experimental aircraft is like pointing to cold fusion.  
They are a *fiction* in the real world.  Your case is not made when 
you’re deliberately being intellectually dishonest like this.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594792

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

> Pointing to experimental aircraft is like pointing to cold fusion. 

Many experimental aircraft actually worked while cold fusion has never
been shown to work, so there is no comparison.
 
> They are a *fiction* in the real world.  Your case is not made when 
> youre deliberately being intellectually dishonest like this.

Utter nonsense.

As shown by the many flying cars made that have actually flown, they
are quite real and the lack of commercial success does not mean that
they did not or do not exist.

The one and only reason for the lack of a commercially successful
flying car is and always has been economics.



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web